THE  TWO  BROTHEl 


BROWNSQN. 


.•A/1 

ire^svt^sMf\T  \  ■• 

§fllli-2«3sJo| ; 

■^ 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


THE  TWO  BROTHERS; 


■OR  — 


Why  are  You  a  Protestant? 


—  BY  — 


0.  A.  BROWNSON,  LL.D. 


KIMTKI)    I'.V 


HENRY  F.  BROWNSON,  A.M.,  LL.D. 


DKTIUHT,   Mini.: 

n.  f.  BROWHsrsoisr., 
38. 


^ 


// 

h 

THE  TWO  BROTHERS ;  OR,  WHY  ARE  YOU 
A  PROTESTANT  ? 


[From  Brownson's  Quarterly  Review  for  1847—8.] 
CHAPTER  I. 

My  old  master,  Jeremiah  Milwood,  as  I  have  told  you,  had 
but  two  children,  both  sons,  and  with  only  about  two  years' 
difference  in  their  ages.  They  were  his  pride,  and  he  spared 
no  pains  or  expense  in  their  education.  He  was  a  standi 
Presbyterian ;  and  his  highest  ambition  for  his  two  sons 
was,  that  they  should  become  earnest,  devoted,  and  distin- 
guished Presbyterian  ministers.  He  seemed  likely  to  be 
gratified.  Both  were  of  a  serious  turn,  studious  and  piously 
inclined.  Before  the  elder  had  completed  his  seventeenth 
year,  both  became  subjects  of  grace,  and  both,  on  leaving 
college,  entered  the  seminary. 

During  the  second  year  of  their  residence  in  the  semi- 
nary, their  mother,  a  woman  of  great  strength  of  character 
and  sweetness  of  disposition,  fell  ill  and  died.  From  that 
moment,  a  striking  change  was  observed  in  the  tone  and 
manner  of  John,  the  elder  brother.  He  was  his  mother's 
favorite,  and  shared  especially  her  confidence.  At  her  re- 
quest, he  had  spent  several  hours  with  her  alone  just  pre- 
viously to  her  death,  and,  though  none  of  us  knew  what 
transpired  to  affect  him,  it  was  subsequently  surmised,  from 
one  or  two  words  which  escaped  him,  that  she  had  expressed, 
in  that  trying  moment,  to  him,  as  the  only  member  of  her 
family  she  could  hope  to  influence,  or  to  whom  she  felt  able 
to  open  her  heart,  some  misgivings  as  to  the  truth  of  Pres- 
byterianism,  and  had  begged  him,  by  his  love  of  her  and 
his  regard  for  the  welfare  of  his  soul,  to  examine  thorough- 
ly its  foundations  before  entering  the  ministry.  However 
this  might  be,  it  is  certain  he  was  never  again  what  ho  had 
been.  Ho  returned,  after  the  obsequies,  to  the  seminary, 
and  even  remained  there  several  months;  but  ho  lost  his 
reliafa  tor  tin-  prescribed  GOnrBe  Of  Studies,  and  became  un- 
willing to  attend  tin;  services  in  the  chapel.  Finally,  he 
wrote  to  his  father,  informing  him    that  he  did  not  wish   to 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 


become  a  Presbyterian  minister,  and,  indeed,  could  not, 
without  binding  himself  to  profess  what  he  did  not  then 
believe  and  in  all  probability  never  should  believe,  and  beg- 
ging permission  to  return  home  and  take  some  other  calling. 
My  old  master,  you  know,  was  never  remarkable  for  his 
sweetness  and  amiability,  and  the  recent  affliction  he  suf- 
fered in  the  loss  of  his  wife  had  rendered  him  doubly  sour 
and  morose.  His  wrath  was  terrible.  His  son  had  disap- 
pointed him,  disgraced  him,  and  he  replied  to  him,  that, 
unless  he  continued  at  the  seminary  and  returned  to  his 
original  faith  and  resolution,  he  was  henceforth  no  son  of 
his,  and  must  seek  a  home,  father,  and  friends  where  lie 
could  find  them.  John,  knowing  explanation  or  expostula- 
tion would  be  vain,  took  the  only  alternative  left  him,  and 
suffered  himself  to  be  exiled  from  his  home.  James,  the 
younger  brother,  who  in  many  respects  resembled  his  father, 
remained  at  the  seminary  and  completed  his  course. 

John  withdrew  to  a  distant  part  of  the  country,  assumed 
his  mother's  name,  and  supported  himself  for  three  or  four 
years  by  teaching  at  an  academy.  While  teaching  he  con- 
trived to  study  law,  in  the  practice  of  which  he  subsequent- 
ly engaged,  distinguished  himself,  and,  in  a  few  years, 
amassed  a  fortune  adequate  to  his  simple  wants  and  tastes. 
Having  done  this,  he  retired  from  business  and  went  abroad. 
James,  on  completing  his  course,  was  licensed  to  preach,  and 
in  a  few  months  was  called  and  ordained  to  the  pastoral 
charge  of  a  wealthy  and  influential  congregation  in  one  of 
our  principal  Atlantic  cities,  and  was  soon  known  and  es- 
teemed as  one  of  the  leading  ministers  of  his  denomination. 
About  a  year  after  his  settlement,  his  father  died  and  left 
him  the  bulk  of  his  estate,  which  was  considerable ;  and  a 
year  later  he  married  the  beautiful  and  accomplished  daugh- 
ter and  heiress  of  his  richest  parishioner,  who  brought  him 
a  still  more  ample  fortune,  and  became  the  mother  of  five 
children,  two  sons  and  three  daughters.  Every  thing  pros- 
pered with  him,  and  he  had  all  that  heart  could  wish.  IJut, 
after  a  while,  the  tide  of  prosperity  began  to  ebb ;  death 
visited  his  home,  and  his  children,  one  by  one,  all,  save  the 
youngest,  who  was  deformed,  sickly,  and  partially  idiotic, 
were  taken  from  him,  and  at  length  his  wife  followed  them. 
He  bore  up  with  stoical  fortitude  against  these  repeated 
blows,  but  lie  felt  them, — was  forced  to  reflect  on  the  cer- 
tainty of  death,  the  uncertainty  of  life,  and  the  perishable 
nature  of  all  earthly  goods,  more  seriously  than  he  had  ever 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  5 

done  before,  and  to  some  extent  his  heart  was  softened  and 
his  spirit  bowed. 

Time  had  hardly  worn  off  the  wire-edge  of  his  grief  and 
begun  to  heal  the  wound  in  his  heart,  when  he  was  sur- 
prised by  a  letter  from  his  brother,  whom  he  had  neither 
seen  nor  heard  from  for  nearly  thirty  years.  The  letter 
offered  him  such  sympathy  and  consolation  as  befitted  the 
occasion,  and  brought  him  the  intelligence  that  its  writer 
was  about  to  revisit  his  native  land,  and,  following  the 
yearnings  of  his  heart,  would  hasten  to  embrace  the  brother 
he  had  never  for  a  moment  forgotten,  or  ceased  to  love. 
James  received  the  letter  with  mixed  emotions,  but  upon 
the  whole  without  displeasure,  and  looked  forward  even 
with  interest  to  his  brother's  return.  In  a  few  weeks  after 
sending  his  letter,  John  embarked,  and,  favored  with  a  short 
and  pleasant  voyage  across  the  Atlantic,  landed  in  the  city 
in  which  James  was  settled,  and  without  delay  drove  with 
his  baggage  to  his  brother's  residence.  The  brothers  met ; 
but  so  altered  in  appearance  was  each,  that  it  was  -with  dif- 
ficulty that  either  could  recognize  his  brother  in  the  other. 
The  meeting  was  frank  and  cordial  on  the  part  of  the  elder, 
and  less  cold  and  restrained  on  the  part  of  the  younger 
than  could  have  been  expected  from  his  general  character. 
Perhaps  he  had  recently  had  some  compunctious  visitings 
<>f  conscience  for  having  so  long  forgotten  even  to  think  of 
one  he  was  hound  by  the  ties  of  nature  to  love;  perhaps 
be  bad  a  vein  of  tenderness  in  his  nature  which  had  not 
hitherto  been  observed,  and  that  early  scenes  and  early 
recollections  revived,  and  for  the  moment  half  subdued, 
the  sectarian  and  minister.  Bat  be  this  as  it  may,  he  was 
not  displeased  to  meet  his  brother.  They  were  soon  seated 
in  a  well-furnished  apartment,  engaged  in  five  and  familiar 
ion.  They  recalled  their  hoyish  days  and  boyish 
frolics,  spoke  of  their  college  life  and  college  companions, 
and  anally  of  their  mother  and  her  lamented  death.  The 
tone  of  both  was  sabdned,  and  they  fumed  their  oonver- 
on  upon  death,  -in,  redemption^  the  resurrection,  and 
immortal  life.     Wnile  speaking  on  these  awful  and  sublime 

topics,  John  referred  to  the  change  which  early  cai >ver 

him  with  I  to  his  religious  news,  and  stated  that  ho 

was,  and  for  years  had  been,  a  member  of  the  Roman  Gath< 
olio  Church.    This  was  unexpected  as  well  as  unwelcome 
news  to  James.     If  his  brother  had  told  him  that,  he  had 
•ome  a  Bociniau  or  even  an  uubeliever,  be  would  not 


g  TIIE   TWO   BROTHERS. 

have  been  surprised,  and  could  have  borne  it;  but  to  be 
told  that  he,  the  principal  mover  of  the  Protestant  league 
for  the  conversion  of  the  pope  and  the  overthrow  of 
popery,  had  himself  a  brother  who  had  turned  Papist,  was 
more  than  he  could  bear.  He  was  thunderstruck,  and 
seemed  for  some  minutes  as  one  bereft  of  thought  and 
sense.  Never  had  he  been  known  to  be  so  overcome.  At 
length,  he  partially  recovered,  and  said  to  his  brother, — "  Mr. 
Mil  wood,  your  room  is  ready ;  I  must  wrestle  with  God  in 
prayer  for  you  before  I  can  speak  to  you  again."  John 
bade  him  good  night,  and  quietly  retired  to  his  room.  It 
was  already  late  in  the  evening,  and,  offering  a  prayer  for 
his  brother,  another  for  the  repose  of  the  soul  of  his 
mother,  and  commending  himself  to  his  heavenly  Father 
and  the  protection  of  our  Lady  and  all  the  saints,  he  com- 
posed himself,  with  a  subdued  but  serene  mind,  to  rest. 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  brothers  met  again  in  the  morning  in  the  breakfast- 
parlor.  James  was  exteriorly  composed,  and  greeted  his 
brother  in  his  blandest  tone ;  but  a  careful  observer  would 
have  suspected  that  he  intended  to  play  the  part  of  the  civil 
and  courteous  host,  rather  than  that  of  the  warm  and  affec- 
tionate brother.  Breakfast  passed  pretty  much  in  silence. 
John  was  disposed  to  wait  the  motions  of  his  brother,  and 
James  was  undecided  whether  to  broach  the  Catholic  ques- 
tion or  not.  But  he  could  not  converse  freely  with  his 
brother  on  indifferent  matters ;  he  felt  that  sooner  or  later 
he  must  discuss  the  question,  and  perhaps  the  sooner  the 
better.  Revolving  the  matter  for  some  time  in  his  mind, 
he  at  length,  throwing  aside  the  morning  paper  he  had  been 
pretending  to  read,  broke  the  silence  oy  remarking  to  his 
brother : — 

"  So  it  seems  the  result  has  been  that  you  have  turned 
Papist?" 

"lama  Catholic"  replied  John,  with  a  slight  emphasis 
on  the  last  word,  intended  as  a  quiet  rebuke  to  his  brother 
for  employing  a  nickname. 

"  It  is  strange  !  "What  in  the  world  could  have  induced 
the  son  of  a  Presbyterian  father,  piously  brought  up,  well 
instructed  in  the  Protestant  religion,  and  not  wanting  in 
natural  ability,  to  take  a  step  so  foolish,  not  to  say  so 
wicked?" 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  7 

"  Let  me  rather  ask  my  brother  why  he  is  a  Protestant  ? " 

"  Why  I  am  a  Protestant  ? " 

"  Yes ;  I  am  much  mistaken,  or  that  is  the  harder  ques- 
tion of  the  two  to  answer." 

"  I  am  a  Protestant  because  the  Romish  Church  is  cor- 
rupt, the  Mystery  of  Iniquity,  the  Man  of  Sin,  Antichrist, 
the  Whore  of  Babylon,  drunk  with  the  blood  of  the  saints, 
a  cage  of  unclean  birds,  cruel,  oppressive,  tyrannical,  super- 
stitious, idolatrous " 

"  But  you  are  simply  telling  me  why  you  are  not  a  Cath- 
olic ;  my  question  is,  Why  are  you  a  Protestant  ? " 

"Protestantism  is  a  solemn  protest  against  Rome,  and 
my  reasons  for  not  being  a  Catholic  are  my  reasons  for 
being  a  Protestant." 

"Jews,  pagans,  Mahometans,  deists,  atheists,  protest  as 
earnestly  as  you  do  against  Rome ;  are  they  therefore  Prot- 
estants ? " 

"  Protestantism  is,  indeed,  a  protest  against  Rome  ;  but  it 
is  also  a  positive  religion." 

"  Unaffected  by  supposing  the  Catholic  Church  to  have 
never  been  or  to  have  ceased  to  be  ? " 

"  Yes ;  Protestantism  is  independent  of  Romanism." 

"  A  Protestant  is  one  who  embraces  Protestantism  in  this 
independent,  positive  sense?" 

"  Yes,  if  we  speak  properly." 

"  Before  telling  me  why  you  are  a  Protestant,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  tell  what,  in  this  sense,  Protestantism  is." 

"  It  is  the  religion  of  the  Bible ; — the  Bible  is  the  re- 
ligion of  Protestants." 

"And  the  religion  of  the  Bible  is ?" 

"  The  truths  revealed  in  the  Bible." 

"  And  these  are ? " 

"The  great  evangelical  doctrines  asserted  by  the  reform- 
ers against  the  false  and  corrupt  doctrines  of  Rome,  and 
which  we  commonly  call  the  doctrines  of  grace." 

"These  doctrines  are  Protestantism?" 

"They  are." 

"So  rrote  tantism  is  the  religion  of  the  Bible,  and  the  rc- 
[orj  <>f  tlir,  Bible  is  Protestantism ! " 
" There  is  nothing  absurd  or  ridiculous  in  that.     Protes- 
tantism,  sir,  is  the  religion  of  the.  Bible,  of  the  whole  Bible, 

the  Bible  alone,  -that  precious  gift,  of  <  w < »< J  t an,— the 

word  of  God,  the  charter  of  our  liberties,  the  source  of  re- 
rip  tion,  the  ground  of  the  CliristianV  hope,  carrj  iug  light 


g  THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 

and  life,  the  blessings  of  truth,  freedom,  and  civilization, 
wherever  it  goes  ;  and  which  you  Papists,  with  character- 
istic cunning,  lock  up  from  the  people,  because  you  know 
full  well,  that,  were  they  once  to  read  it  for  themselves, 
they  would  make  short  work  with  the  pope  and  his 
minions,  break  their  covenant  with  death  and  hell,  and  put 
an  end  to  their  blasphemies,  idolatries,  and  oppressions." 

"  I  suspect,  brother,  you  have  accommodated  that  from 
the  speech  you  made  at  the  last  anniversary  of  the  Ameri- 
can Bible  Society.  It  may  do  very  well  to  address  to  the 
mob  that  collects  on  '  anniversary  week ' ;  but  can  you  not 

five  me  a  clear,  distinct,  and  precise  statement  of  what 
'rotestantism  really  is  ? " 

"  Protestantism  is  the  great  truth  asserted  by  the  reform- 
ers against  Rome,  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,  and 
that  they  are  the  sole  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and 
practice." 

"  If  I  believe  the  Scriptures  are  sufficient,  and  are  the 
sole  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  do  I  believe  the  whole  of 
Protestantism  ? " 

"  No ;  you  must  also  believe  the  word  of  God  as  contained 
in  the  Scriptures." 

"  And  this  word  consists  of  certain  credenda  or  proposi- 
tions to  be  believed  % " 

"  It  does ;  and  these  may  all  be  summed  up  in  the  text, 
— '  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved.' " 

"  To  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  to  believe ? " 

"  The  truths  he  has  revealed,  whether  of  himself,  or 
other  things." 

"  These  truths  are ? " 

"  The  great  evangelical  doctrines  asserted  by  the  reform- 
ers." 

"  That  is,  they  are  Protestantism.  Therefore,  Protestant- 
ism is — Protestantism  1  But  can  you  not  be  a  little  more 
particular,  and  tell  me  what  these  truths  or  doctrines  are  ? " 

"You  will  find  an  excellent  summary  of  them  in  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms." 

"  That  is,  they  are  Presbyterianism  ?  Protestantism,  then, 
is  Presbyterianism." 

""What  else,  from  my  profession  as  a  Presbyterian  minis- 
ter, should  you  infer  to  be  my  belief  2" 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  9 

"  I  am  rather  slow  to  infer  a  Presbyterian  minister's  be- 
lief from  his  profession.  But,  if  Protestantism  be  Presbv- 
terianism,  none  but  Presbyterians  can  be  Protestants.  Is 
this  your  belief  ?  " 

"Not  exactly;  for  there  are  Protestants  who  are  not 
Presbyterians." 

"  These,  of  course,  differ  more  or  less  from  Presbyterians, 
or  else  they  would  be  Presbyterians.  Consequently  Protes- 
tantism must  differ  more  or  less  from  Presbyterianism." 

"  In  non-essentials,  but  not  in  essentials.  All  who  em- 
brace the  essentials  are  Protestants." 

"  Do  Catholics  embrace  the  essentials  ? " 

"  According  to  the  general  opinion  of  Protestants,  they 
do." 

"Then,  according  to  the  general  opinion  of  Protestants, 
Catholics  are  Protestants  ? " 

"  But  I  think  differently,  and  our  General  Assembly  will 
soon,  I  hope,  solemnly  declare  that  Rome  does  not  retain 
even  the  essentials  of  the  Christian  faith." 

"  That  will  be  a  sad  dav  for  Rome,  no  doubt :  but  what. 
in  your  judgment,  are  the  essentials?" 

"  They  are  the  great  evangelical  doctrines  of  the  refor- 
mation, embraced  by  all  orthodox  Protestants." 

"  And  orthodox  Protestants  are ? " 

"All  who  agree  in  accepting  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  great  essential  aoctrines  of  revelation." 

"Which  means  that  the  essential  doctrines  are  the  essen- 
tial doctrines,  and  orthodox  Protestants  are  orthodox  Protes- 
tants." 

"  The  essential  doctrines  are  substantially  what  is  held  by 
Presbyterians." 

"Those  orthodox  Protestants  who  are  not  Presbyterians 
differ  from  Presbyterians  only  in  relation  to  non-es6entials  \ " 

"That  is  all." 

"Presbyterian ism,  or,  what  is  the  same  tiling,  the  ortho- 
dox faith,  then,  is  made  up  of  two  parts,  one  essential,  the 
other  Hon  e   ential  ? " 

M  All  parts  of  tin;  orthodox  faith  are  not  alike  essential. 
But  there  in  iv  he  differences  which  are  not,  differences  of 
faith.  'I  he  Congregationalists,  Evangelical  Episcopalians, 
hutch  [informed,  the  Calvinistic  Baptists,  Ac.,  differ  from 
us  in  matters  of  discipline  and  church  government,  whil< 
they  embrace  substantially  the  game  faith  we  do." 

"Is  infant   baptil  in  a  matter  of  faith  I  " 


10  THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 

"  Not  strictly." 

"  Then  you  do  not  baptize  infants  because  you  believe 
Almighty  God  commands  you  to  baptize  them?" 

"  we  do ;  but  the  point  is  not  so  essential,  that  those 
who  differ  from  us  must  needs  err  essentially." 

"  One  may,  then,  reject  a  positive  command  of  God,  with- 
out essential  error  ? " 

"  We  think  our  Baptist  brethren  err  grievously ;  but,  as 
they  hold  the  great  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  we  do 
not  think  their  error  is  absolutely  essential.  In  the  present 
6tate  of  the  religious  world,  it  is  the  duty  of  God's  people 
to  make  the  platform  of  Christian  union  as  broad  as  possi- 
ble, to  discountenance  theological  wranglings,  to  seek  to 
heal  sectarian  divisions,  and  to  follow  after  the  things  which 
make  for  peace." 

"  But  if  you  had  no  fears  of  popery,  and  felt  that  your 
own  sect  had  the  power  to  make  converts,  I  suppose  you 
would  regard  the  Baptists  as  of  the  number  of  those  who 
bring  in  '  damnable  heresies.' " 

"  You  are  ungenerous ;  I  regret  the  unsoundness  of  my 
Baptist  brethren,  but  I  do  not  consider  them  as  essentially 
wrong." 

"  ]N  ot  even  when  they  deny  you  the  Christian  character, 
by  denying  that  your  baptism  is  baptism, — and  when  they 
refuse  to  commune  with  you,  on  the  ground  that  you  are 
unbaptized  persons ;  that  is,  infidels,  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  word  ? " 

"  There  they  are  wrong  ;  but  still  not  essentially  so,  be- 
cause baptism  itself  is  a  non-essential." 

"  Then  you  do  not  agree  in  opinion  with  our  Lord,  who 
says,  k  Unless  a  man  be  born  again  of  water  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  he  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  % '  " 

"  Christian  doctrines  are  distinguishable  into  fundamen- 
tals and  non-fundamentals.  The  fundamentals  are  the  es- 
sentials, the  non-fundamentals  are  the  non-essentials.  All 
who  believe  the  former  are  substantially  orthodox,  though 
they  may  differ  about  the  latter." 

"  The  non-fundamentals  are  either  revealed  truths,  or  they 
are  not.  If  they  are  not,  your  distinction  of  fundamentals 
and  non-fundamentals  is  simply  a  distinction  between  what 
is  revealed  and  what  is  not  revealed,  between  the  word  of 
God  and  the  words  of  men  or  of  devils ;  and,  on  this  sup- 
ion,  the  essentials  will  be  what  God  has  revealed,  and 
the  non-essentials  what  he  has  not  revealed.     If  they  are 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  11 

revealed  truths,  you  imply  that  a  portion  of  the  revealed 
word  is  unessential,  and  may  be  disbelieved  or  rejected 
without  essential  error.     Which  do  you  say  ? " 

"Suppose  we  say  they  are  no  portion  of  the  revealed 
word  ? " 

"  You  cannot  say  that,  because  you  have  declared  them 
to  be  revealed  truths,  by  asserting  that  Christian  doctrines 
are  distinguishable  into  fundamentals  and  non-fundamentals. 
But  pass  over  this.  If  you  say  the  non-fundamentals,  that 
is,  the  non-essentials,  are  not  revealed  truths,  you  imply,  by 
making  the  fundamentals  essential  to  be  believed,  that  the 
w/tole  revealed  word  is  essential  to  be  believed,  and  there- 
fore deny  that  there  can  be  any  differences  of  opinion  as  to 
any  portion  of  what  is  revealed,  without  essential  error, 
which  renders  your  distinction  between  fundamentals  and 
non-fundamentals  of  no  avail ;  since  no  one,  unless  a  Prot- 
estant, is  likely  to  contend  that  any  thing  more  than 
what  is  revealed  is  essential  to  be  believed.  Is  it  not 
so?" 

"  So  it  appeals." 

"Then  again,  you  say,  men,  though  differing  about  the 
non-essentials,  that  is,  about  what  is  not  revealed,  are  sub- 
stantially orthodox,  if  they  believe  the  essentials,  that  is, 
what  is  revealed.  Now  they  may  differ  about  the  non-es- 
sentials, by  believing,  some,  that  they  are,  and  some,  that 
they  are  not,  revealed  truths,  or  portions  of  the  word  of 
God,  as  we  see  in  the  case  of  you  and  the  Baptists  concern- 
ing infant  baptism;  you  believing  it  to  be  revealed  and 
commanded  by  (rod  himself,  they  believing  it  not  revealed 
and  implicitly  forbidden.  Now,  if  men  may  believe  the 
non-essentials  to  be  revealed,  they  may,  according  to  you, 
without  essential  error,  believe  that  to  be  the  word  of  God 
which  is  the  word  of  men  or  of  devils.  Do  you  admit 
this?" 

M0f  course  not.  'Cursed  18  every  one  thai  addeth  to  the 
word-  of  this  book.'  The  condemnation  of  Rome  is  not  60 
much  that,  .-he  denies  the  csM-ntial  truths  of  the  Christian 
religion, as  that  she  overlays  them  by  her  corrupt  addition.-, 
and  renders  them  of  none  effed  through  the  traditions  of 

men.      Ii   i.T  a-  much  an    BITOT  to  add  to  the  word  as  to  take 
from  it." 

"Then  you  abandon  this  supposition,  and  take  the  other, 
— that  the  non  essentials  are  revealed  truths,  portions  of  the 
Wold  of  <  rod  :  " 


12  THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 

"  Be  it  so,  for  the  present." 

"  Then  you  must  say,  since  you  allow  men  to  believe  or 
reject  them,  without  essential  error,  that  a  portion  of  the 
word  of  God,  of  the  truth  Almighty  God  has  revealed,  may 
be  denied  without  essential  error.  Do  you  hold  that  one 
can  be  substantially  orthodox,  and  yet  deny  a  portion  of 
God's  word?" 

"  Even  your  own  doctors  distinguish  between  fundament- 
als and  non-fundamentals,  and  teach  that  faith  in  the  fun- 
damentals suffices  for  salvation." 

"  This,  even  if  true,  would  not  avail  you  ;  for  our  doctors 
are  no  authority  for  you,  and  you  cannot  urge  them  against 
me  in  this  discussion,  since  I  am  not  defending  the  church. 
But  it  is  not  true.  Our  doctors  distinguish  between  the 
articles  of  the  creed  which  are  logically  fundamental  or 
primary,  and  those  which  are  secondary,  I  admit ;  but  they 
do  not  teach  that  faith  in  the  primary  alone  suffices  for  sal- 
vation. They  teach  that  the  whole  must  be  believed,  either 
explicitly  or  implicitly,  and  simply  add,  that  explicit  faith 
in  the  primary  articles,  with  implicit  faith  in  the  secondary, 
is  all  that  is  necessary,  necessitate  mediiP 

"  That  is  all  I  ask.  He  who  believes  explicitly  the  prima- 
ry believes  implicitly  the  secondary  ;  for  the  primary  imply 
the  secondary." 

"  So,  on  the  other  hand,  he  who  explicitly  ^believes  the 
secondary,  implicitly  disbelieves  the  primary ;  for  the  sec- 
ondary presuppose  or  imply  the  primary.  No  man  believes 
implicitly  what  he  explicitly  denies.  But  you  hold  the 
non-fundamentals  may  be  explicitly  denied  without  essen- 
tial error ;  therefore,  you  cannot  assume  that  they  are  im- 
plicitly believed." 

"  But  do  you  pretend  that  every  thing,  however  unim- 
portant or  insignificant,  is  essential  to  be  believed  ? " 

"  Your  faith,  not  mine,  is  the  matter  in  question." 

"  As  a  Catholic,  you  are  bound  to  hold  that  the  book  of 
Tobias  is  the  word  of  God.  In  that  book  I  read  that  Toby 
had  a  dog,  and  that  the  dog  came  to  his  master,  wagging 
his  tail.  Is  it  essential  to  your  salvation,  that  you  believe 
with  a  firm  faith  that  Toby  really  had  a  dog,  and  that  the 
dog  actually  did  wag  his  tail  ? " 

"  That  is  not  precisely  the  question.  Assuming  the  in- 
spiration of  the  book,  can  you  deny  the  fact  without  essen- 
tial error  \ " 

""Why  not  1  Common  sense  teaches  us  that  the  fact  is 
no'  md  cannot  be  in  itself  essential." 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  13 

"  And  do  you  hold  that  there  can  be  essential  error  only 
where  the  matter  denied  is  in  itself  essential  ? " 

"  How  can  there  be  ? " 

"  What,  in  religious  or  divine  faith,  is  the  immediate  ob- 
ject believed  ? " 

"  The  truth  of  the  particular  proposition,  whatever  it  may 

Uvi 

"  Not  exactly ;  for  the  faith  is  religious  only  where  the 
proposition  believed  is  a  revealed  proposition." 

"  The  truth  of  the  particular  revealed  proposition,  then, 
whatever  it  may  be." 

"  In  believing,  does  the  mind  perceive  the  truth  of  the 
proposition  believed,  or  only  the  proposition  itself?" 

"  Explain  yourself." 

"  "What  is  faith,  as  distinguished  from  knowledge  or  sci- 
ence ? " 

"  Faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence 
of  things  not  seen." 

"  Or,  as  says  St  Augustine, — Fides  est  credere  quod  non 
vides, — Faith  is  to  believe  what  you  do  not  see.  But  you 
must  see  or  mentally  apprehend  the  proposition,  or  you  can- 
not assent  to  it.  What,  then,  is  that  in  the  proposition 
which  you  assent  to,  but  which  you  do  not  see  ? " 

"  The  truth  of  the  proposition." 

"  As  in  the  proposition,  '  God  exists  in  unity  of  essence 
and  trinity  of  persons,'  you  distinctly  and  immediately  ap- 
prehend the  proposition,  but  not  its  truth ;  otherwise,  it 
would  be  a  proposition,  not  of  faith,  but  of  knowledge  or 
science, — knowledge,  if  perceived  intuitively ;  science,  if 
perceived  only  by  means  of  discursion.  Hence,  rationalists, 
when  they  refuse  to  believe  the  mysteries  of  faith  because 
they  cannot  immediately  perceive  their  truth,  deny,  vir- 
tually, the  possibility  of  faith,  and  fall  into  the  absurdity  of 
contending  that  they  cannot  have  faith,  unless  it  be  knowl- 
edge or  science ;  that  is,  they  cannot  have  faith  unless  faith 
be  impossible!  Where  there  is  sight,  there  is  not  Faith. 
Hence  W6  say,  faith  will  Lose  itself  in  sight,  hope  be  swal- 
lowed in  fruition,  but  charity  abideth  for  ever.  I  immedi- 
ately perceive  the  propositions  of  faith,  or  the  oredenda} 
but  not  their  intrinsic  truth.  Therefore,  the  truth  of  the 
revealed  proposition  cannot  l»e  that  which  is  immedia(<  hj 
believed  or  assented  to." 

''  So    it    Would       e,-MI." 

"If  it  is  qoI  immediately  believed,  it  must  he  mediately 


14  THE   TWO    BRO'lHERS. 

believed  ;  that  is,  must  be  believed  in  some  thing  else,  on  or 
by  some  authority  at  least  formally  distinct  from  itself." 

"  That  must  be  true ;  for  faith  is  always  by  some  author- 
ity distinct  from  the  believer  and  the  proposition  believed." 

"  Then  the  immediate  object  believed  will  be,  not  the 
intrinsic  truth  of  the  proposition,  but  this  authority  in,  on, 
or  by  means  of  which  it  is  believed  ? " 

"Be  it  so." 

"Now,  in  religious  faith,  what  is  this? " 

"  The  Bible,  as  all  Protestants  contend,  in  opposition  to 
Romanists,  who  say  it  is  the  church." 

"  Catholics  do  not  say  the  church  is  the  authority  for  be- 
lieving the  truth  of  the  revealed  proposition,  but  simply  for 
believing  it  is  a  revealed  proposition  ;  and,  if  you  reflect  a 
moment,  you  must  admit  that  the  Bible  is  at  best  only  au- 
thority for  believing  this  or  that  is  revealed,  not  authority 
for  believing  that  what  is  revealed  is  true." 

"  We  recognize  no  authority  above  the  Bible." 

"  Then  you  place  the  Bible  above  God  himself,  which  I 
own  is  what  you  who  call  yourselves  Protestants  often  have 
the  appearance  of  doing ;  but  this  cannot  be  your  meaning. 
All  you  can  mean  is,  that,  in  determining  what  God  has 
revealed,  the  Bible  is  the  highest  authority  you  recognize. 
But  the  Bible,  although  assumed  to  be  the  highest  author- 
ity for  determining  what  God  has  revealed,  is  yet  no  author- 
ity for  saying  what  he  reveals  is  true.  Why  do  you  believe 
what  God  reveals  in  or  through  the  Bible  is  true  ? " 

"  Because  it  is  his  revelation,  his  word." 

"That  is,  you  believe  it  because  God  says  it.  But,  in 
believing  it  because  God  says  it,  what  is  it  you  immediately 
believe  2 " 

"  God  himself." 

"  That  is,  you  believe  the  proposition  because  it  is  God's 
word,  and  you  believe  his  word  because  you  believe  him. 
But  why  do  you  believe  him  ? " 

"  Because  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  lie." 

"  That  is,  because  he  is  infinitely  true,  is  truth  itself,  and 
can  neither  deceive  nor  be  deceived  ?  " 

"  I  have  no  objection  to  that." 

"  Then  the  object  immediately  believed,  in  believing  a 
revealed  proposition,  is  the  infinite  truth  or  veracity  of  (rod 
who  reveals  it." 

"Be  it  60." 

"Which,  in  religious  faith,  then,  shall  we  say  is  the  more 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 


15 


essential  point  to  be  believed, — the  matter  revealed,  or  the 
infinite  veracity  of  God  who  reveals  it  ? " 
"  What  is  the  difference  ? " 

"  The  difference,  perhaps,  will  appear,  if  you  tell  me  what 
it  is  that  makes  the  faith  religious  faith,  or  distinguishes  it, 
as  religious  faith,  from  all  other  kinds  of  faith." 

"  It  is  religious  faith  because  the  proposition  believed  is 
a  revealed  proposition." 

"  If  I  believe  the  proposition,  '  God  exists  in  unity  of 
essence  and  trinity  of  persons,'  because  you  teach  it,  or  be- 
cause I  think  I  have  discovered  and  demonstrated  it  by  my 
own  reason,  is  my  belief  religious  belief  ? " 

"  "Why  not,  since  the  proposition  in  either  case  is  the 
same  ?  What  difference  can  it  make,  if  it  be  believed,  for 
what  reason  or  on  what  ground  it  is  believed  ? " 

"  If  I  believe  it  because  you  teach  it,  I  believe  you,  and 
what  I  immediately  believe  is  that  you  are  a  man  of  truth 
and  worthy  of  credit.     Is  there  any  thing  religious  in  my 
believing  you  ? " 
"  Not  necessarily." 

"  If  I  believe  it  because  I  think  I  have  discovered  and 
demonstrated  it  by  my  own  reason,  I  simply  believe  my  own 
reason.     Ts  to  believe  my  own  reason  religious  belief  ? " 
"  Certainly  not." 

"  For,  if  it  were,  every  belief,  whether  intuitive  or  scien- 
tific, would  be  religious,  and  the  belief  of  falsehood  as  much 
as  truth  ;  since,  in  every  act  of  belief,  whether  the  belief  be 
well  founded  or  not,  I  believe  my  reason.  But  if  I  believe 
the  proposition,  not  because  you  teach  it,  not  because  I  dis- 
cover or  demonstrate  it  by  my  own  reason,  but  because 
God  says  it,  and  therefore  because  I  believe  him,  and  that 
he  is  infinitely  true,  and  can  neither  deceive  me  nor  be  de- 
ceived, and,  furthermore,  because  he  commands  me  to  believe 
it,  is  ray  act  now  religious?" 
"  It  is." 

"  Then  it  would  seem  that  it  is  believing  and  obeying 
(  to  1,  which  makes  the  belief  religious  belief  {" 
"That  appears  to  be  so." 

"Then  the  more  essential  point  in  religious  belief  is  not 
simply  belief  of  the  matter  revealed,  but  of  God  who  re- 
reals  it?" 

•  Very  well,  let  it  be  so." 

"  In  every  proposition,  be  it  what  it  may,  which  T  believe 
because  {'^A  reveals  it,  1  do  believe  him,  ao  I  not? M 


16 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 


"  So  it  follows  from  what  we  have  said." 

"  But  if  the  more  essential  point  is  to  believe  God,  the 
more  essential  error  must  be  to  disbelieve  him,  must  it  not  ? " 

"  Certainly,  to  disbelieve  God  is  the  most  heinous  offence 
of  which  man  can  be  guilty.  The  grossest  insult  we  can 
offer  even  to  a  fellow-mortal  is  to  call  him  a  liar ;  and  we 
call  God  a  liar,  whenever  we  disbelieve  or  refuse  to  believe 
him." 

"  But  do  I  not  disbelieve  or  refuse  to  believe  God,  and 
therefore  make  God  a  liar,  whenever  I  refuse  to  believe  a 
proposition  because  I  have  only  his  word  for  it  ? " 

"  You  do,  and  are  guilty  of  the  sin  of  infidelity." 

"  Then,  if  God  has  told  me,  no  matter  for  what  reason, 
that  Toby  had  a  dog  and  the  dog  wagged  his  tail,  and  I  re- 
fuse to  believe  it,  do  I  or  do  I  not  err  essentially  % " 

"  You  err  essentially,  as  it  appears  from  what  we  have 
said." 

"  Then  there  may  be  essential  error,  where  the  matter  or 
proposition  denied  is  not  in  itself  essential  ? " 

"  So  it  would  seem." 

"Then  you  will  concede  what  you  call  the  non-funda- 
mentals, if  revealed  truths,  can  no  more  be  denied  without 
essential  error  than  the  fundamentals  themselves  ? " 

"  Not  at  all.  Doubtless,  where  the  matter  is  clearly  and 
manifestly  revealed,  refusal  to  believe  is  essential  error; 
but  it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  it  is  essential  error  to 
refuse  to  believe,  where  it  is  not  clearly  and  manifestly 
revealed,  where  it  is  uncertain  that  God  speaks,  and,  if  he 
does,  what  is  the  exact  meaning  of  what  he  says." 

"  This  uncertainty,  not  the  fundamental  or  non-funda- 
mental nature  of  the  matter  in  question,  then,  is  that  which 
saves  the  refusal  to  believe  from  being  essential  error  ? " 

"  That  seems  to  follow." 

"  If  the  same  uncertainty  existed  with  regard  to  what  is 
fundamental,  the  refusal  to  believe  it  would,  then,  no  more 
be  essential,  than  the  refusal  to  believe  the  non-funda- 
mentals ? " 

"  That  seems  also  to  follow." 

"  In  order,  then  to  determine  what  are  the  essentials,  that 
is,  what  must  be  believed,  and  cannot  be  denied  without 
essential  error,  and  what  are  the  non-essentials,  that  is,  what 
without  essential  error  may  be  either  believed  or  denied,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  inquire,  not  what  are  the  fundamentals 

Vol..  VI— 17. 


THE   TWO   BKOTHKBS, 


17 


and  what  the  non-fundamentals,  but  what  is  or  is  not  clearly 
and  manifestly  revealed." 

"  Since  the  fundamentals  are  all  clearly  and  manifestly  re- 
vealed, I  have  no  objections  to  saying  so. " 

"  "WTiether  the  fundamentals  are  all  clearly  and  manifestly 
revealed  or  not,  you  must  so  say,  or  abandon  the  ground  you 
have  taken.  The  essentials,  then,  are  what  is  clearly  and 
manifestly  revealed  ? " 

"  Be  it  so." 

"  The  non-essentials  what  is  not  clearly  and  manifestly  re- 
vealed ? " 

"  Agreed." 

"  He  who  believes  all  that  is  clearly  and  manifestly  re- 
vealed believes  all  the  essentials,  is  free  from  essential  error, 
is  substantially  orthodox  ? " 

"  Agreed,  again." 

"  He  who  rejects  any  truth  clearly  and  manifestly  revealed 
errs  essentially  ? " 

"He  does." 

"  But  he  who  rejects  only  the  non-essentials  bdoes  not  err 
essentially  ? " 

"  Stop  there  a  moment.  Men  may  differ  as  to  the  non- 
essentials without  essential  error ;  but  to  differ  in  opinion 
about  a  point  is  not  necessarily  to  deny  it ;  for  botli  parties 
may  intend  to  believe  it,  and  would,  if  they  could  only  ascer- 
tain the  truth  involved." 

"  But  individuals  may  differ  in  some  respects,  even  as  to 
matters  of  faith,  from  Presbyterians,  without  erring  essen- 
tially?" 

"I  do  not  deny  it." 

"The  points  on  which  thejr  differ  must  be  non-essentials, 
otherwise  the  difference  would  be  essential.  In  regard  to 
these  points  they  must  differ  from  Presbyterians,  either  by 
holding  some  things  to  he  revealed  truths  which  Presbyterians 
do  not,  or  by  denying  some  things  to  bo  revealed  truths  which 
Presbyterians  believe  are  revealed  truths?" 

uTney  may  also  differ  from  them  by  simple  ignorance." 

"That  is  true;  but  then  they  differ  only  negatively,  not 
positively.  Presbyterians  in  this  respect  must  differ  from 
one  another;  for  some  are  better  informed  as  to  what.  Pres- 
ltyt«Tiani.~.m  Lfl  than  others  are  or  can  be;  but  they  arc,  nev- 
ertheless, all  alike  Presbyterians.  Bo  I,- as  a  Catholic,  may 
be  ignorant  of  si  pom  •  points  of  the  Oatholic  faith,  and  in  tin  i 
respect  differ  from  the  one  who  knows  them  all ;  but  1  am 


18 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 


as  true  a  Catholic  as  he,  because  I  intend  to  believe  all  the 
Church  teaches,  because  I  am  ready  to  believe  all  as  soon  as 
explicitly  propounded  to  me,  and  because  the  points  on  which 
I  am  ignorant  I  believe  implicitly,  since  they  are  implied  in 
what  I  believe  explicitly.  This  is,  therefore,  a  mere  nega- 
tive difference,  and  amounts  to  nothing.  The  differences  in 
question  are  positive  differences,  and  these  must  consist,  eith- 
er in  believing  things  to  be  revealed  which  you  deny  to  be 
revealed,  or  in  denying  certain  things  to  be  revealed  which 
you  believe  to  be  revealed." 

"  I  do  not  see  how  that  follows." 

u  The  differences  we  are  considering  concern  matters  of 
faith ;  and  nothing,  I  suppose  you  will  grant,  is  or  can  be 
matter  of  faith  which  is  not  a  divinely  revealed  truth.  Or, 
rather,  no  man  can  hold  any  thing  to  be  matter  of  faith,  un- 
less he  holds  it  to  be  matter  of  revelation,  that  is,  a  revealed 
truth." 

"  I  do  not  know  about  that." 

"  But  you  do ;  for  the  faith  we  are  speaking  of  is  religious 
faith,  and  we  have  agreed  that  there  can  be  religious  faith 
only  where  the  proposition  believed  is  a  revealed  proposi- 
tion." 

"  Yery  well,  proceed." 

"  If,  then,  you  admit  differences  as  to  matters  of  faith  may 
exist  without  essential  error,  you  must  admit  that  the  non- 
essentials may  be  either  believed  or  disbelieved  without  es- 
sential error,  unless  you  choose  to  admit  that  you  yourselves 
are  in  essential  error." 

"How  so?" 

"  You  certainly  deny  some  things,  which  you  call  non-es- 
sentials, to  be  revealed  truths ;  such,  for  instance,  as  the  di- 
vine institution  of  the  episcopacy,  which  is  asserted  by  Prot- 
estant Episcopalians.  But,  if  the  non-essentials  cannot  be 
denied  without  essential  error,  then  you  err  essentially  in 
denying  it.  On  the  other  hand,  you  assert  infant  baptism  to 
be  a  divine  command,  which  your  Baptist  brethren  deny. 
Infant  baptism,  you  say,  is  a  non-essential ;  if,  then,  non-es- 
sentials cannot  be  positively  denied  without  essential  error, 
your  Baptist  brethren  err  essentially,  and  are  not,  as  you  have 
admitted,  substantially  orthodox.  Moreover,  unless  you  ad- 
mit the  non-essentials  may  be  either  believed  or  disbelieved 
without  essential  error,  your  distinction  between  essentials 
and  non-essentials  avails  you  nothing,  and  you  must  come 
back  and  assert  that  none,  who  differ  positively  in  any  mat- 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  19 

ter  from  Presbyterians,  have  or  can  have  the  essential  faith ; 
and  then  you  must  recall  your  denial,  and  say  that  Presby- 
terianism  and  Protestantism  are  one  and  the  same  thing,  and 
that  Presbyterians  are  the  only  Protestants." 

"  Very  well,  I  will  not  insist  on  the  point.  Say  the  non- 
essentials are  matters  which  one  may  either  believe  or  disbe- 
lieve without  erring  essentially." 

"  We  now  seem  to  be  in  a  fair  way  of  determining  what 
Protestantism  is.  It  is,  you  say,  the  essentials,  and  the  essen- 
tials are  all  the  truths  clearly  and  manifestly  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Tell  me  what 
these  truths  are,  and  you  tell  me  what  Protestantism  is,  and 
take  the  preliminary  step  towards  answering  my  question, 
"Why  are  you  a  Protestant  ? " 

CHAPTER  m. 

Much  to  the  relief  of  James,  while  he  was  considering 
what  he  should  reply  to  John's  last  demand,  the  conversation 
was  suspended  by  the  entrance  of  Mr.  Wilson,  a  brother 
Presbyterian  minister,  settled  over  the  oldest  Presbyterian 
congregation  in  the  city.  He  was  of  Scottish  descent,  and 
upwards  of  seventy  years  of  age, — a  man  of  antiquated  no- 
tions, with  little  respect  for  the  vounger  ministers  of  his  de- 
nomination. Presbyterianism,  in  his  view,  had  nearly  lost 
its  original  distinctive  character.  Wesley  and  Whitefield, 
by  their  appeals  to  heated  passion  and  mere  animal  excite- 
ment, instead  of  reason  and  voluntary  affection,  had  well 
nigh  ruined  it.  Presbyterians  were  now  Methodists,  Armi- 
oians,  in  all  except  name  and  outward  organization  and  gov- 
ernment ;  and  the  new  methods  and  measures  lately  adopted 
for  the  conversion  of  sinners  appeared  to  him  likely  to  prove 
in  the  end  its  total  destruction.  He  saw  with  pain  the  lec- 
ture-room and  rostrum  superseding  the  pulpit,  strolling  evan- 
gelists and  revival  preachers  the  regular  pastors,  and  "in- 
quiry" and  "anxious"  meetings  the  orderly  ministrations  of 
the  word. 

M.  bween  him  and  James  there  was  little  sympathy.  James 
was  a  man  of  his  times,  lie  understood  the  tendencies  of 
li is  age  and  country,  and  held  that  it  was  the  part  of  wis- 
dom, if  riot  indeed  of  duty,  to  yield  to  and  obey  them.  To 
luive  power  over  the  people,  he  held  it  to  be  necessary  to 
consull  them,  to  change  with  them,  to  take  the  direction  they 
indicate,  to  be  always  just  in  advance  of  them,  and  never  to 


20 


TIIE   TWO   .BROTHERS. 


lag  behind  them.  He  availed  himself  of  their  passions  and 
tendencies  as  the  readiest  way  of  occupying  the  post  of  lead- 
er, and,  if  he  could  only  occupy  that  post,  the  direction  he 
followed  or  the  final  goal  he  might  reach  was  comparatively 
indifferent.  He  was  adroit,  shrewd,  unscrupulous,  but  he  did 
not  know  that  he  who  leads  the  mob  only  by  yielding  to 
them  leads  them  only  by  being  their  slave.  The  true  leader 
is  he  who  makes  the  multitude  follow  him,  not  he  who  fol- 
lows them.  He  who  has  principles  and  will  stand  by  them, 
though  he  stand  alone,  or  be  hewn  down  by  the  maddened 
multitude  for  his  fidelity  to  them,  is  by  many  degrees  supe- 
rior to  him  who  sacrifices  his  principles,  if  he  have  any,  to 
popularity,  or  who  has  no  principles  but  to  ascertain  and 
yield  to  the  passions  and  tendencies  of  the  age  or  country. 
But  of  all  this  James  knew,  at  least,  cared,  nothing.  He  lived 
in  an  age  and  country  of  demagogues,  and  he  did  not  aspire 
to  be  thought  superior  to  his  age  and  compatriots.  The  great- 
est modern  achievement  in  the  state,  he  was  accustomed  to 
hear  it  boasted,  had  been  to  establish  the  rale  of  demagogues ; 
and  why  should  it  not  be  as  glorious  to  establish  this  rule  in 
the  church  as  in  the  state  ? 

Little  as  James  sympathized  ordinarily  with  Mr.  Wilson, 
he  welcomed  him  in  the  present  instance  with  great  cordial- 
ity, and  introduced  him  to  his  brother.  After  some  com- 
monplace remarks,  he  told  him  he  had  just  learned  that  his 
brother,  who  had  been  absent  for  many  years,  had  become 
a  Catholic.  He  recapitulated  the  conversation  they  had  just 
had,  stated  the  point  at  which  it  had  arrived,  and  begged 
Mr.  Wilson  to  answer  the  question  they  were  debating. 
Mr.  Wilson  was  not  pleased  with  the  course  adopted  by 
James,  and  replied : — 

"If  I  had  had  the  management  of  this  discussion  from 
the  beginning,  I  should  have  given  it  another  direction. 
Your  brother  has,  doubtless,  been  under  the  training  of  the 
Jesuits,  is  versed  in  all  their  scholastic  refinements  and  sub- 
tilties,  and  a  perfect  master  of  all  the  sophistical  arts  by 
which  they  entrap  and  bewilder  the  simple  and  unwary. 
When  you  dispute  with  such  a  man,  mind  and  keep  the 
management  of  the  argument  in  your  own  hands.  Consent 
to  ply  the  laboring  oar  yourself,  and  you  are  gone.  The 
great  secret  of  dialectics  is  in  knowing  how  to  put  your 
questions.  You  gentlemen  of  the  modern  school  are  far 
abler  demagogues  than  logicians,  and  much  better  skilled  in 
exciting  the  passions  of  the  mob  than  in  managing  a  dis- 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS.  «l 

cussion.     I  have  often  told  you  the  folly  and  madness  of 
neglecting  severer  studies.     You  have  studied  only  to  con- 
form to  the  multitude ;  you  have  made  the  mob  supreme, 
and  taught  them  to  lord  it  over  their  pastors,  loosened  them 
from  their  old  moorings,  set  them  adrift  upon  a  stormy  and 
tempestuous  sea,  without  helm  or  helmsman,  or  rather  with 
the  helmsman  bound  to  obey  the  helm.     Their  passions  are 
a  favorable  gale  for  you  to-day ;  but  what  certainty  have 
you  that  they  may  not  make  the  port  of  Rome,  or  be  strand- 
ed on  the  rock}'  beach  of  popery,  to-morrow  ?     Attempt  to 
guide  or  control  them,  cross  in  any  thing  their  prejudices 
or  their  wishes,  and  where  are  they, — where  are  you  {  How 
often  must  I  tell  you,  it  is  hard  making  the  port  of  the  Gos- 
pel with  the  devil  for  pilot?     If  you  had  had  a  grain  of 
common  sense,  you  would  have  insisted  on  your  brother's 
answering  your  question,  why  he  had  become  a  Catholic, 
instead  of  consenting,  as  a  great  fool,  to  answer  his  question, 
why  you   are  a  Protestant.     If  you  had  been  acquainted 
with  the  old  Protestant  controversialists,  you  would  have 
seen  that  they  leave  Protestantism  to  take  care  of  itself,  # 
while  they  reserve  all  their  forces  for  the  attack  upon  1101110/' 
Never  mind  that  now,  Brother  Wilson.     I  could  hard- 
ly f  the  turn  the  conversation  would  take,  for  those 
holies  I  have  baown  have  generally  contented  themselves 
with  replying  to  the  charges  brought  against  their  church, 
without  going  fur  in  their  attacks  upon  Protestantism  ;  and 
,  it  is   QO  more  than  right,  since  Protestantism  is  a 
itive   religion,  that  they  who  profess  it  should  define 
what  they  meat)  by  it,  and  give  their  reasons  for  believing 
it." 

"If  the  old   Protestant   masters  of    whom    Mr.    Wilson 

tn  interposed  John,  "had  thought  of  that,  and)  before 

Qolieity,  bad  defined  ana  established  a  religion 

of  their  own,  my  brother  would  have  had  an  easy  task  now, 

if  indeed  an-.  t  ,dl." 

MThe  true  polemical  policy  is  always  to  keep  yourself  and 
party  on  the  offensive ;  bat  if  you  imagine  that  Protestant- 
tive  religion,  is  indefinable  and  indefensible) 
you  iy  mnch  mi  rtaken." 

"The    readiest  way  to  convict    mc   of  that  will  be  to  dl 

fine  it,  and  give  nn-  good  and  valid  reasons  for  believing 
"In  becoming  a  Oatholio  yon  abjured  Proteetantianx  Am 

I  to  infer  that  yon  abjured  you   knew  not  what?" 


22 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 


"  Mr.  "Wilson  pays  me  but  a  sorry  compliment,  if  he  sup- 
poses I  shall  voluntarily  surrender  what  he  terms  the  true 
polemical  policy.  The  question  is  not  what  I  may  or  may 
not  know  of  Protestantism,  what  I  may  or  may  not  have 
abjured,  on  becoming  a  Catholic,  but  what  Protestantism  is, 
as  understood  by  those  who  profess  it  ? " 

"  But,  if  you  were  not  fully  informed  as  to  what  Protes- 
tantism really  was,  how  could  you  know  that  in  abjuring  it 
you  were  not  abjuring  the  truth  ?  " 

"  He  who  has  the  truth  has  no  need  of  knowing  the  sys- 
tems opposed  to  it,  in  order  to  know  that  they  must  be  false. 
But  suppose  you  proceed  with  your  definition.  You  profess 
to  be  a  Protestant,  and  so  able,  experienced,  and  learned  a 
man  cannot  be  supposed  to  profess  to  believe  he  knows  not 
what.     If  you  know  what  it  is,  you  can  easily  tell  me." 

"  I  will  give  you  Dr.  Owen's  definition.  I  dare  say  your 
brother  James  has  never  read  Owen's  works,  nor  Boston's, 
nor  those  of  any  other  man  who  was  in  breeches  fifty  years 
ago.  It  is  a  shame  to  think  how  the  old  worthies  are  neg- 
lected. Nobody  reads  them  now-a-days.  The  study  of 
school  divinity  is  wholly  neglected.  Our  theologians  are 
frightened  at  a  folio,  tremble  at  a  quarto,  can  hardly  endure 
even  an  octavo.  The  demand  is  for  works,  '  short,  pithy, 
and  pungent.'  It  is  the  age  of  petty  Tracts,  Penny  Maga- 
zines, Peter  Parleys,  Robert  Merrys,  trash,  nonsense,  and 
humbug." 

"  And  yet  it  is  the  glorious  age  on  which  the  glorious  sun 
of  the  glorious  reformation  beams  in  all  its  effulgence.  If 
the  reformers  were  here,  they  would  exclaim,  Et  tu,  Brute!" 

"  I  hope  Mr.  Wilson  will  not  heed  my  brother's  sneer," 
interposed  James ;  "  but  proceed  with  his  definition." 

"  Brother  Mil  wood,  have  you  Owen's  works  ?  No  ?  No,. 
I  dare  say  not.  But  I  presume  you  have  Dowling,  D'Au- 
bigne,  and  the  last  new  novel." 

"  I  do  not  read  novels." 

"  The  best  thing  you  have  said  for  yourself  yet.  "Well,  I 
see  I  must  quote  from  memory.  Protestantism, — remem- 
ber I  quote  the  great  Dr.  Owen,  one  of  those  sound  old 
English  divines  who  cared  as  little  for  prelacy  as  for  papa- 
cy, and  would  no  more  submit  to  king  than  to  pope.  They 
were  the  men.  It  will  be  Ions:  before  we  shall  look  upon 
their  like  again.  They  were  God's  freemen.  The  pomps 
and  vanities  of  the  world  could  not  dazzle  or  blind  them. 
They  cared  not  for  crown  or  mitre,  and  the  blood  of  a  king 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS.  23 

was  to  them  as  the  blood  of  a  common  man.  They  went 
straight  to  their  object.  England  was  not  worthy  of  them. 
The  Lord  directed  them  here.  Here  they  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  a  noble  empire.  This  is  their  work ;  this  land  is 
their  land,  and  their  children's  after  them,  and  a  crying 
shame  is  it,  that  a  miserable,  idolatrous  Papist  should  be  suf- 
fered to  pollute  it  with  his  accursed  foot." 

"  But  you  are  thinking  of  the  Independents,  rather  than 
of  the  Presbyterians.  The  Presbyterians  were  for  king  and 
covenant,  and  pretend  to  have  disapproved  of  the  execution 
of  Charles  Stuart." 

uXo  matter.  The  Independents  only  completed  what 
the  Presbyterians  began,  and  soon  sunk  into  insignificance 
when  left  to  struggle  alone.  In  the  glorious  war  against 
prelacy  and  papacy  they  were  united  as  brothers,  as  I  trust 
will  always  be  their  children." 

"  But  the  definition." 

"  Remember,  I  quote  the  words  of  the  great  Dr.  Owen, 
great  and  good,  notwithstanding  he  left  the  Presbyterians 
and  became  a  Congregationalist ; — excepting  in  matters  of 
church  government,  rigidly  orthodox,  and  as  much  superior 
to  the  degenerate  race  of  ministers  in  our  day,  as  a  huge 
old  folio  is  to  a  modern  penny  tract,  and  whose  works  I 
recommend  to  both  of  you  to  read.  Protestantism  is, — '  1. 
What  was  revealed  unto  the  church  by  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles,  and  in  the  whole  of  that  religion  which  the  Lord 
doth  and  will  accept.  2.  Sofa/r  ax  Deeded  unto  faith,  obe- 
dience, and  salvation  of  the  church,  what  they  taught,  re- 
vealed, and  commanded  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of 

the  New  Testament,  witnessed  unto  and  continued  by  the 
Old.      3.   All  that  is  required,  that  we  may  please  (Jod,  and 

be  accepted  with  him,  and  conic  to  the  eternal  enjoyment 
of  him,  is  that  we  truly  and  sincerely  believe  what  is  so  re- 
Jed  and  taught,  yielding  sincere  obedience  unto  what  is 
commanded  in  the  Scriptures.  1.  If  in  any  thing  they 
Protestants]  be  found  to  deviate  froiu  them,  if  it  [what 
they  teach]    exceed    in    any  instance  what    is  so   taught    ami 

commanded,  if  it  be  defective  in  the  faith  or  the  practice  of 

any  thing  BO  revealed  or  commanded,  they  are    ready  to  re- 
nounce it.'     What  do  yon  ask  more  clear,  brief,  comprehen- 
.  and  |  than  thai  1 

"  I  >id  our  Lord  and  hie  apoi  I  le  reveal  any  religion  which 
they  did  not  reveal  to  the  church,  or  which  Qod  doth  not 

and  will  not   accept  1  " 


24  THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 

"  Of  course  not." 

"  Then  Mr.  Owen  might  have  said  simply,  Protestantism 
is  what  was  revealed  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  unto  the 
church." 

"  Perhaps  he  might." 

"  What  was  so  revealed  is  the  true  religion,  is  it  not  % " 

"  It  is." 

"  Then  he  would  have  said  all,  if  he  had  said,  Protestant- 
ism is  the  true  religion." 

"  Be  it  so." 

"  If  you  will  now  tell  me  what  is  the  true  religion,  you 
will  tell  me  what  Protestantism  is." 

"  Mr.  Owen  tells  you  in  his  second  article." 

"  I  beg  your  pardon.  He  tells  me  in  that  where  the  true 
religion  is,  so  far  as  needed  ;  but  not  what  it  is." 

"In  his  third  article,  then." 

"  Not  in  that ;  for  in  that  he  simply  tells  me,  that,  if  I  be- 
lieve and  obey  the  true  religion,  so  far  as  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  I  have  all  that  God  re- 
quires of  me." 

"  Well,  in  the  fourth." 

"  But  that  simply  informs  me,  that,  if  Protestants  have 
mistaken  the  true  religion,  if  they  contend  for  more  or  for 
less  than  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  they  are  ready  to  re- 
nounce it:  although  whether  by  it  is  to  be  understood  true 
religion,  the  mistake,  the  excess,  or  the  defect,  he  does  not 
inform  me.  So,  you  perceive,  I  am  not  as  yet  told  what 
Protestantism  is." 

"  But  you  are  told  where  it  is,  and  that  is  enough." 

"  That  may  or  may  not  be.  The  cook  knew  where  the 
teakettle  was  when  it  fell  overboard,  but  nevertheless  he 
could  not  get  it  to  make  the  captain's  tea." 

"  It  is  in  the  New  Testament,  witnessed  unto  and  con- 
firmed by  the  Old.  You  can  go  there  and  find  it  for  your- 
self." 

"  Has  it  any  mark  by  which  I  may  recognize  it  when  I  see 
it?" 

"  If  you  seek,  you  shall  find.  Our  Lord  himself  says  that, 
and  I  hope  you  will  not  dispute  hira." 

"  Does  he  say,  if  you  seek  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament,  you  shall  find  %  " 

"  Not  expressly." 

"  Do  all  who  seek  in  those  Scriptures  find  ? " 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 


25 


"  All  who  faithfully  study  them  and  rightly  understand 
them." 

"  Do  all  who  attentively  read  them  rightly  understand 
them  ? " 

"No;  some  wrest  them  to  their  own  destruction,  and 
bring  in  damnable  heresies." 

"You  have  faithfully  studied  and  rightly  understand 
them  ? " 

"  I  think  so." 

"  Lest  I  should  be  one  of  those  who  wrest  them  to  my 
own  destruction,  suppose  you  tell  me  what  is  the  true  relig- 
ion which  they  contain,  or  which  I  ought  to  find  in  them." 

"  If  you  are  one  who  would  wrest  the  Scriptures  to  your 
own  destruction,  you  would  dp  the  same  with  my  statement 
of  what  they  contain.  I  should  do  you  no  good  by  com- 
plying with  your  request.  If  you  believe  not  Moses  and 
the  prophets,  neither  will  you  believe  me." 

"How,  then,  am  I  ever  to  know  certainly  what  this  thing 
you  call  Protestantism,  and  say  is  the  true  religion,  really 

18?" 

"Head  your  Bible,  Sir,  with  humble  submission,  without 
any  reliance  on  yourself,  with  sincere  and  earnest  prayer  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  enlighten  you,  and  you  will  be  led  into 
all  truth." 

"  Perhaps  so.  But  our  question  is  not,  What  is  truth  ? 
but,  "What  is  Protestantism?" 

M  Have  I  not  told  you  Protestantism  is  the  true  religion  ? 
He,  then,  who  is  led  to  the  truth  must  needs  be  led  to  Prot- 
estantism." 

"  I  stand  corrected.     But  since  some  do  wrest  the  Script 
ures  to  their  own  destruction,  and  bring  in  '  damnable  here- 
gies,'  how  do  you  determine  infallibly  that  you  may  not 
yourself  be  one  of  them?" 

u  I  am  accustomed,  Sir,  to  being  treated  with  respect,  ami 
I  trust  you  mean  me  no  insult." 

"They  who  are  accustomed  to  be  treated  with  respect 

neral,  slow  to  think  themselves  insulted.     If  Mr. 

Wilson  doei  not  know  infallibly  thai  he  rightly  understands 

the  Scriptures,  I annotdeny  that  it  is  possible  he  maybe 

wn  :  hem  t<>  his  own  destruction." 

"Through  God's  distinguishing  grace  vouchsafed  to  me, 
fur  do  worth  q<  of  mine,  I  have  been  enabled  to  see  and 
know  the  truth." 

"Is  tli  vouch  afed  to  .-ill  I " 


26 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 


"  To  all  whom  God  has  preordained  unto  everlasting  life  ; 
but  those  whom  he  has  from  all  eternity  reprobated  to  ever- 
lasting death,  for  the  praise  of  his  vindictive  justice,  he 
leaves  to  their  reprobate  sense,  to  their  own  blindness,  and 
even  sends  them  strong  delusions,  that  they  may  believe  a 
lie  and  be  damned." 

"  And  these  never  had  it  in  their  power  to  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  and  be  saved  ? " 

"  If  they  had  willed." 

"  Were  they  ever  able  to  have  willed  ?  " 

"  Naturally,  yes ;  morally,  no." 

"But  actually?" 

"  No.  Those  whom  God  ordains  to  everlasting  death  he 
ordains  to  sin,  that  they  may  be  damned  justly." 

"  That  is  a  hard  doctrine,  Brother  Wilson.  It  was  taught 
indeed  by  the  great  Calvin,  whom  God  so  highly  favored, 
but  it  is  not  now  generally  taught  by  Presbyterians.  The 
doctrine  of  God's  decrees  is,  indeed,  full  of  sweet  comfort 
to  the  elect,  but  it  needs  to  be  handled  with  great  prudence, 
and  is  to  be  meditated  in  our  closets  rather  than  made  the 
basis  of  our  instructions  to  others.  Sinners  do  not  and  can- 
not understand  it.  They  only  make  a  mock  of  it,  and  it 
proves  to  them  the  savor  of  death  unto  death." 

"  There  it  is !  The  time  has  come  when  the  people  will 
no  longer  hear  sound  doctrine,  when  it  is  imprudent  to  de- 
clare the  whole  counsel  of  God.  Hence  the  race  of  weak 
and  puny  saints,  who  must  be  fed  on  milk,  and  that  diluted. 
Yery  well,  I  must  leave  you  to  manage  the  discussion  in 
your  own  way  ;  but  be  on  your  guard.  The  time  is  not  far 
distant,  if  things  proceed  as  they  have  done  for  a  few  years 
back,  when  you  will  have  no  Protestantism  to  define  or  de- 
fend, but  each  man  will  have  a  gospel  of  his  own.  Good 
morning,  gentlemen." 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  conversation  was  not  resumed  for  several  days. 
James  found  it  a  less  easy  task  to  define  Protestantism  than 
he  had  imagined.  He  had  been  accustomed  to  take  the 
word  in  a  very  loose  and  indefinite  sense.  As  chief  of  the 
Protestant  League,  he  had  meant  by  it  little  else  than  the 
denial  of  Catholicity ;  in  his  warfare  against  Socinians,  ra- 
tionalists, and  transcendentalists,  he  had  made  it  stand  for 
doctrines  and  principles  which  logically  imply  the  Catholic 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  27 

Church ;  in  his  own  pulpit,  addressing  the  people  of  his 
charge,  he  had  understood  by  it  simply  Presbyterianism, 
•with  a  slight  leaning,  perhaps,  towards  Arminianism.     But 
he  had  never  given  the  terra  a  clear,  distinct,  and  uniform 
meaning,  which  he  was  willing  to  stand  by  in  all  places  and 
on  all  occasions.     He  saw  that  to  define  it  in  a  negative 
sense,  and  make  Protestantism  merely  a   protest    against 
Rome,  was  not  necessarily  to  distinguish  it  from  paganism, 
Mahometanism,  Judaism,  deism,  or  even  atheism  ;  and  to 
restrict  it  to  simple  Presbyterianism,  if  not  against  his  con- 
science, was  in  the  present  state  of  the  world,  bad  policy. 
It  would  bo  tantamount  to  saying  that  Protestantism  is  an 
empty  name  ;  that  there  are  indeed  Presbyterians,  Episco- 
palians, Baptists,  Methodists,  etc.,  but  no  Protestants;  that 
there  is  a  multitude  of  sects,  indeed,  sometimes  arranged 
under  one  common  name,  but  without  any  common  faith 
or  principles,  except  that  of  hostility  to  the  church.     It 
would,  moreover,  too  openly  expose  his  weakness  to  the 
enemy,  and  confess  that  the  great  and  mighty  Protestant 
party,  which   had   begun   by  assuming  such  lofty  airs,  and 
threatening  to  become  commensurate  with   Christendom, 
had  dwindled  down  to  the  little  handful  of   Presbyterians 
in  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, — those  on  the  Con- 
tinent having  pretty  generally  lapsed  into  Socinianism,  ra- 
inalism,  and  transcendentalism, — divided  into  four  or  five 
.  if  !i' it   hostile,  communions,  and  their  numbers 
day  relatively  diminishing,  which  would  create  mirth 
rather  than  dread  at  Rome,  against  whom  he  wished  to 
carry  on  a  war  of  extermination.    On  the  other  hand,  to 

end  its  meaning  so  as  to  embrace  all  the  so-called   I'rot- 

frona   Dr.   Pnsey  down  to  Theodore    Parker, 

i  i     »rd  to  the  MLelodeon,  was  hardly  leas  inconvenient. 

lb- would  never  march  through  Coventry  at  the  head  of 

sh  a  motley  company.    Rome  would  declare  thai  all  mot- 

dom  and  all  devildom  had  broken  loose.  He  should 
nev<  r  hear  the  last  of  it.  Bui  to  find  a  definition  which 
.should  extend  beyond  the  narrow  boundaries  of  Presbyte" 

idoin  without,  including  all  sectariandom  was  the  dilli- 
.  tv.     //>•>■  opu8t  /"'•■  labor  est. 

iral  daya  in  meditating  on  this  problem, 

I  without  hitting  upon  B  solution  quite  to  his  mind  ;    but 

having  obtained  a  few  hinta  from  some  of  the  earlier  Prot- 
troversialisl  ,  and  trusting  to  the  chapter  of  acci- 
dents, he  took  occasion,  finding  himself  in  hia  Library  alone 
with  Join 


28  THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 

"  I  think,1'  said  he,  addressing  his  brother,  "  that,  if  you 
review  our  former  conversation,  you  will  own,  my  last  an- 
swer to  the  question,  What  is  Protestantism  ?  is  all  that  you 
have  any  right  to  demand." 

"  I  have  no  wish  to  make  any  unreasonable  demands," 
John  replied.  "  What  I  want  is  to  find  out  precisely  what, 
in  its  distinctive  features,  this  thing  or  this  no-thing  which 
you  call  Protestantism  really  is.  If  your  answer  tells  me 
what  it  is,  and  distinguishes  it,  or  enables  me  to  distinguish 
it,  from  what  it  is  not,  it  is  unquestionably  sufficient." 

"  Protestantism  is  the  essentials,  and  the  essentials  are  all 
the  truths  clearly  and  manifestly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments." 

"  If  to  believe  the  essentials  be  all  that  is  necessary  to 
constitute  one  a  Protestant,  then  all  who  believe  all  the 
truths  clearly  and  manifestly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures 
must  be  Protestants." 

"  Certainly." 

"  If  Catholics,  as  is  very  supposable,  to  say  the  least,  be- 
lieve all  that  is  clearly  and  manifestly  revealed  in  the  Script- 
ures, then  Catholics  are  Protestants. 

"  But  Catholics  do  not  believe  all  that  is  clearly  and  man- 
ifestly revealed  in  the  Scriptures." 

"  They  profess  to  do  so,  and  they  say  with  you,  all  that  is 
clearly  and  manifestly  revealed  is  essential  to  be  believed, 
and  no  point  of  it  can  be  disbelieved  without  essential 
error." 

"  But  they  hold  that  other  things  than  those  clearly  and 
manifestly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  are  also  essential  to  be 
believed." 

"  That  is,  they  believe  all  that  you  define  to  be  the  essen- 
tials are  essentials,  but  do  not  believe  that  these  are  all  the 
essentials.  But  this  does  not  hinder  them  from  being  good 
orthodox  Protestants ;  for  your  definition  excludes  only 
those  who  believe  less,  not  those  who  believe  more,  than  the 
essentials." 

"  Say,  then,  Protestantism  is  to  believe  all  the  essentials, 
and  that  what,  and  only  what,  is  clearly  and  manifestly  re- 
vealed in  the  Scriptures  is  essential,  or,  without  essential 
error,  can  be  believed  to  be  essential.  That  excludes  Cath- 
olics, by  asserting  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures,  which 
they  do  not  admit." 

"But  besides  the  essentials,  are  the  non-essentials,  which 
m.ty  without  essential  error  be  either  believed  or  disbe- 
lieved, to  be  the  word  of  God  ? " 


THE   TWO   BEOTHER8.  29 

"  That  is  what  I  contend." 

"  But  they  who  believe  them  to  be  the  word  of  God  mu6t 
believe  them  to  be  essential." 

"Why  so?" 

"Remember  Toby  and  his  dog.  He  who  believes  a  thing 
to  be  the  word  of  God  must  either  believe  it  essential  to  be 
believed,  or  else  believe  that  it  is  no  essential  error  to  dis- 
believe God.  Can  I,  without  essential  error,  believe  it  is 
no  essential  error  to  disbelieve  God  ? " 

"  No,  for  that  is  tantamount  to  making  him  a  liar,  since 
there  is  no  essential  difference  between  believing  that  it  is 
no  essential  error  to  disbelieve  God,  and  actually  disbelieving 
him." 

"  Then  they  who  believe  the  non-essentials  to  be  the  word 
of  God  must  believe  them  to  be  essential,  or  else  virtually 
make  God  a  liar  ? " 

"  That  follows." 

"But  it  is  essential  error  to  believe  any  thing  to  be  essen- 
tial which  is  not  essential  ? " 

"  So  I  have  implied." 

"Then  it  follows,  does  it  not,  that  he  who  believes  any  of 
the  non-essentials  to  be  the  word  of  God  errs  essentially?" 

"  So  it  would  seem." 

"All  who  dilTer  from  Presbyterians  diiTer  from  them 
either  by  believing  some  things  to  be  the  word  of  God 
which  Presbyterians  denvto  be  his  word,  or  vice  versa?" 

"  True." 

"  If  the   latter,  they  err  essentially,  assuming   Presbyte- 
rians to  be  right,  by  aot  believing  all  the  essentials." 
reed." 

'•It  the  former,  they  err  essentially  by  believing  some 
things  to  I":  c-.-iitiil  which  are  nut." 

•1  tmj  also  folio* 

"Then  all  who  <1  i lT<r  from  Presbyterians  in  matters  of 
faith  err  essentially.  Therefore,  none  who  differ  from  them 
as  to  matters  of  faith  can  be  essentially  orthodox.  It",  then, 
yon  say  none  can  be  essentially  orthodox  who  believe  an\  of 
the  con  eoaontinlfl  to  be  essential,  you  exclude  all  who  diiTer 
from  P  ,  make  Pn  nanism  and   Protestant- 

ism equivalent  and  convertible  terms,  and  declare  cone  but 
Pre  byteriana  are  Protestants,  which  I  understand  jron  to 
dei 

"I  do  deny  it ;  for  Preebyteri  re  not  tin- only  essen- 
tially orthodox  I  'rote  tants. 


30  THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 

"  How,  tli en,  can  you  say  that  Protestantism  is  to  believe 
the  essentials,  and  that  only  the  essentials  can,  without  essen- 
tial error,  be  believed  to  be  essential  ?     Do  you  insist  on 
saving  this  still  ? " 
"  I  do." 

"  Is  infant  baptism  an  essential  or  a  non-essential  ?  " 
"  A  non-essential,  as  I  have  told  you  more  than  once." 
"  But  Presbyterians  believe  it  to  be  a  revealed  command  ? " 
"  They  do." 

"  Therefore  believe  it  to  be  the  word  of  God." 
"  Certainly." 

"  Then  they  believe  it  essential,  and  therefore  err  essen- 
tially by  believing  a  non-essential  to  be  essential.  Hence,  if 
you  insist  on  saying  that  they  who  believe  any  thing  but  the 
essentials  to  be  essential  err  essentially,  you  will  exclude 
Presbyterians  themselves  from  the  number  of  essentially  or- 
thodox Protestants." 

"  But  I  have  just  told  you  Presbyterians  hold  infant  bap- 
tism to  be  a  non-essential." 

u  Then  they  hold  it  is  no  essential  error  to  disbelieve  God, 
which  is  itself  a  most  essential  error,  for  it  virtually  makes 
God  a  liar,  as  you  have  conceded.  In  either  case,  then, 
Presbyterians  are  excluded  ;  in  the  one  case,  by  believing  a 
non-essential  to  be  essential ;  and  in  the  other,  by  believing 
it  no  essential  error  to  make  God  a  liar.  Do  you  still  insist 
that  it  is  essential  error  to  believe  any  thing  in  addition  to 
the  essentials  to  be  essential  ?  " 
"I  do." 

"  Then  you  abandon  your  distinction  between  the  essen- 
tials and  non-essentials  ? " 
"  Not  at  all." 

"  You  still  say,  there  are  portions  of  the  revealed  word 
which  may  be  either  believed  or  disbelieved  to  be  the  word 
of  God  without  essential  error  ? " 

"  I  do.  To  deny  this  would  be  to  place  myself  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  whole  Protestant  world,  from  the  time  of  the 
reformation  down  to  the  present  moment.  It  is  by  means 
of  this  distinction  that  we  nave  met  and  repelled  the  charge 
which  Papists  bring  against  us,  that  there  is  no  unity  of  faith 
amongst  us.  In  non-essentials  we  have  always  admitted  we 
do  not  agree ;  but  in  essentials  we  have  always  contended 
we  do  agree ;  and,  tlieref  ore,  that  there  is  among  us  substan- 
tial unity  as  to  faith." 

"  These  non-essentials,  as  to  which  Protestants  have  dif- 


THE  TWO   BROTHERS.  31 

fered  and  still  differ,  have  they  been  held  to  be  non-essen- 
tials alike  by  those  who  believed  and  those  who  disbelieved 
them  to  be  the  word  of  God  ? " 

"  They  have." 

"  All  have  agreed,  then,  that  there  is  a  portion  of  the  word 
of  God  which  it  is  no  essential  error  to  disbelieve  ? " 

"  Such  is  the  fact." 

"  Are  you  not  mistaken  ? " 

"  I  think  not." 

"  Then  you  hold  that  the  whole  Protestant  world,  from 
the  time  of  the  reformation  down  to  the  present  moment, 
have  believed  it  no  essential  error  to  disbelieve  God,  that  it 
is  no  essential  error  to  make  God  a  bar ;  in  a  word,  you  hold 
that  all  Protestants  always  have  been,  and  still  are,  virtual 
infidels.  Will  you  still  insist  on  the  distinction  between 
essentials  and  non-essentials  ? " 

"  I  tell  you  I  cannot  surrender  that  distinction  without 
placing  myself  in  opposition  to  the  whole  Protestant  world." 

"  You  still  say  that  there  are  portions  of  the  word  which 
are  not  essential  ? " 

"  I  do." 

"  And  these  may  be  believed  to  be  the  word  of  God? " 

"  They  may." 

"  And  some  who  are  essentially  orthodox  do  so  believe 
them,  or  at  least  some  of  them,  to  be  the  word  of  God  ? " 

"  They  do." 

"  Yet  no  one  is  essentially  orthodox  who  believes  any 
thing  but  the  essentials  to  be  essential?" 

"  No  one." 

"  And  no  one  can  believe  any  thing  to  be  the  word  of 
God  without  believing  it  to  be  essential,  as  we  have  proved 
in  the  case  of  Toby  and  his  dog  ? " 

"  Unless  it  be  no  essential  error  to  disbelieve  God." 

"  Some  essentially  orthodox  Protestants  believe,  then,  the 
Baiuf  thing  at  the  same  time  to  be  both  essential  and  not  es- 
sential?" 

'•  That  is  not  possible.'* 

"Then  it  will  be  convenient  to  drop  the  distinction  be- 
tween essentials  and  dob  essentials,  and  say  that  all  who  be- 
lieve any  thing  to  he  the  word  of  <  lod,  except  what  Lfl  clearly 

ami  manifestly  revealed,  err  essentially,  will  it  not  ?" 

'•  No;  for  all  thai  i  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  evidently 
i  not  dearly  and  manife  tly  revealed,  and  it.  would  be 
absurd  to  say  thai  a  man  can  err  essentially  in  believing, 
when  what  be  believes  is  the  word  <>f  God." 


32  THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 

"  Then  you  will  take  the  ground,  that  all  essentially  ortho- 
dox Protestants  are,  and  always  have  been,  virtual  infidels, 
believing  it  no  essential  error  to  make  God  a  liar  ? " 

"  Not  that,  by  any  means." 

"  You  fall  back,  then,  on  your  former  ground,  and  say 
Protestantism  is  the  essentials  ;  he  who  believes  these,  what- 
ever else  he  believes  or  disbelieves,  to  be  the  word  of  God, 
is  essentially  orthodox." 

"  Very  well." 

"  But  the  non-essentials,  or  matters  it  is  lawful  to  believe 
or  disbelieve  to  be  the  word  of  God,  are  not  the  words  of 
men  or  of  devils,  but  revealed  truths,  as  we  agreed  in  our 
former  conversation  ? " 

"  Certainly." 

"  But  to  believe  the  words  of  men  or  of  devils  to  be  the 
word  of  God  is.  as  you  have  said,  essential  error." 

"  True." 

"  Then,  after  all,  we  cannot  say  that  he  who  believes  the 
essentials  is  essentially  orthodox,  whatever  else  he  believes 
or  disbelieves  to  be  the  word  of  God ;  for  this  would  imply 
that  it  is  no  essential  error  to  add  to  the  word  of  God  the 
words  of  men  or  of  devils." 

"  Say,  then,  he  who  believes  the  essentials  is  essentially 
orthodox,  whatever  else  he  believes  or  disbelieves  to  be  the 
word  of  God,  provided  he  believes  nothing  to  be  the  word 
of  God  which  is  not  his  word." 

"  Then  none  of  those  who  believe  any  thing  to  be  reveal- 
ed which  Presbyterians  deny  are  essentially  orthodox." 

"  I  do  not  see  that." 

"  What  they  believe  which  exceeds  what  you  believe,  you 
hold  to  be  either  revealed  or  not  revealed.  If  revealed,  you 
are  guilty  of  the  sin  of  infidelity  in  not  believing  it ;  if  not 
revealed,  you  must  hold  they  err  essentially,  for  you  hold 
they  believe  that  to  be  the  word  of  God  which  is  not  his 
word.  The  last  is  what  you  do  hold,  and  therefore  you 
cannot  hold  that  they  are  essentially  orthodox  Protestants." 

"Be  it  so." 

"  You  must  also  deny  those  to  be  essentially  orthodox 
who  believe  less  than  you  do.  If  the  matters  you  believe 
which  they  do  not  are  not  revealed  truths,  you  err  essen- 
tially in  believing  them  to  be  revealed  ;  if  they  are  revealed, 
you  must  believe  they  err  essentially  in  disbelieving  them  ; 
since  in  disbelieving  them  you  must  hold  they  disbelieve 
God." 

Vol.  VI-18. 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  33 

"  That  seems  to  be  so." 

"  Then  yon  exclude  from  the  essentially  orthodox  all  who 
believe  more  or  less  than  yourselves  ;  that  is,  all  but  your- 
selves. If,  then,  you  insist  on  the  proviso  you  have 
adopted  in  your  definition,  and  say  no  one  can  be  essentially 
orthodox  who  believes  any  thing  in  addition  to  the  word, 
you  must  either  give  up  your  distinction,  as  I  have  said,  be- 
tween essentials  and  non-essentials,  or  else  say  it  is  no  essen- 
tial error  to  disbelieve  God ;  which  will  you  do  ? " 

"Neither." 

"  But  you  either  believe  the  non-essentials  to  be  revealed 
truths,  that  is,  the  word  of  God,  or  you  do  not.  If  you  do 
not,  your  distinction  between  them  and  the  essentials  avails 
you  nothing,  as  we  have  seen.  Hence  you  have  insisted 
that  they  are  revealed  truths.  But  if  you  hold  them  to  be 
revealed  truths,  you  must  hold  them  to  be  not  non-essential, 
but  essential,  as  Toby  and  his  dog  have  proved  to  us,  since 
to  disbelieve  tliem  would  be  to  make  God  a  liar.  This  you 
admit,  do  you  not  ? " 

"  I  have  admitted  it  over  and  over  again. " 

u  Then  on  no  ground  whatever  canyon  admit  any  portion 
of  revealed  truth  to  be  unessential,  and,  willingly  or  unwill- 
ingly, \<>u  must  abandon  j'our  distinction  between  the  es- 
sentials and  non-essentials,  and  either  say  Protestants  have 
n  and  are  virtual  Infidels  in  teaching  that  it  is  no  essen- 
tial error  to  disbelieve  God,  or  else  that  they  have  never 
meant  that  any  portion  of  the  revealed  word,  clearly  and 
manifestly  revealed  or  not,  can  be  disbelieved  without  es- 
sential error.     Which  alternative  do  you  elect?" 

u  If  either,  the  latter." 

"Presbyterians,  then,  are  the  only  essentially  orthodox 

J'r  it     '  i'  ' 

-  Very  well." 

UP  rim-  are  fallible,  liable  to  be  mi-taken 

"We  do  not,  like  Romanists,  set  up  a  claim  to  infalli- 
bffil 

are   fallible,  it.    is  possible    they  take   that  to    D6 

the  word  of  (""l  which  is  not  his  word,  or  deny  thai  to  be 

hi-  word    which    is  his  word.       In    either    <• .,   .-,  they  will    he 

Itv  of  essential  error.  Oon  eqnently,  it.  is  po  ible  that 
Presbyterians  themselves  are  in  essential  error,  and  there- 
fore impofl  ible  for  them  to  say  with  certainty  thai  they  are 
•  entii illv  orthodox,  and  therefore  they  musl  admil  that  it 
is  uncertain  whether  there  are  any  essentially  orthodox  Prot- 
estants at  all !" 


34  'l'JIE  TWO   BROTHERS. 

"But  you  forget  that  the  essentials  are  clearly  and  mani- 
festly revealed,  and  therefore  may  be  known  with  all  neces- 
sary certainty." 

"  You  also  forget  that  "we  have  just  agreed  that  all  reveal- 
ed truth  is  essential,  and  that  you  have  surrendered  the  dis- 
tinction between  essentials  and  non-essentials.  You  assum- 
ed, as  you  were  obliged,  the  non-essentials  to  be  revealed,  for 
otherwise  they  would  be  simply  the  words  of  men  or  of 
devils,  which  it  is  not  lawful  to  believe  to  be  the  word  of 
God ;  but  the  moment  you  admit  them  into  the  category  of 
revealed  truths,  you  must  either  concede  them  to  be  essen- 
tial, or  else  that  it  is  no  essential  error  to  disbelieve  God ; 
that  is,  to  be  an  infidel,  and  make  God  a  liar.  This  last  you 
could  not  do  ;  therefore  you  were  obliged  to  say  all  that  is 
revealed  is  essential.  But,  if  you  say  this,  you  must  say, 
either  that  the  essentials  are  not  restricted  to  what  is  clear- 
ly and  manifestly  revealed,  or  else  that  nothing  but  what  is 
clearly  and  manifestly  revealed  is  revealed  at  all.  Which 
will  you  say  ? " 

"  For  the  present,  that  nothing  is  revealed  but  what  is 
clearly  and  manifestly  revealed.  Almighty  God  is  good, 
and  natural  reason  suffices  to  prove  that  he  cannot  have 
made  that  necessary  to  be  believed  which  is  obscure  or 
doubtful.  If  he  has  made  his  whole  word  necessary  to  be 
believed,  the  whole  must  be  clearly  and  manifestly  revealed, 
and  what  is  not  so  revealed  can  be  no  part  of  his  word." 

"His  word,  being  clear  and  manifest,  cannot  be  mistaken, 
or,  at  least,  there  can  be  no  difficulty  in  determining  what 
it  is?" 

"  None." 

"  But  clear  and  manifest  are  relative  terms.  A  thing  may 
be  clear  and  manifest  to  you,  and  not  to  me.  To  whom, 
then,  do  you  say  the  word  is  clearly  and  manifestly  re- 
vealed I " 

"  "What  is  clear  and  manifest  is  clear  and  manifest,  and 
can  be  honestly  mistaken  by  no  one." 

"  That  is,  what  is  alike  clear  and  manifest  to  all  men." 

"  But  I  mean  what  is  alike  clear  and  manifest  to  all  men." 

"  The  word  is  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  in  the  Script- 
ures alone,  and  these  alone  are  sufficient  ? " 

"  Yes  ;  that  is  what  all  Protestants  assert. " 

"  The  word  is  revealed  in  these  alike  clearly  and  mani- 
festly to  all  men  %  " 

"Yes." 


THE    TWO    BKOTIIEKS. 


35 


"  To  those  who  cannot  read,  as  to  those  who  can  ? " 

"  There  should  be  none  who  cannot  read." 

"  But  nineteen-twentieths  of  mankind,  at  the  lowest  cal- 
culation, cannot  read,  and  nearly  as  large  a  proportion  of 
those  who  can  read  cannot  read  so  as  to  understand  what 
they  read.  Do  you  say  the  revealed  word  is  clearly  and 
manifestly  revealed  to  all  these  ? " 

"  Of  those  to  whom  little  is  given  little  will  be  required." 

"  That  is  tQ  say,  Almighty  God  does  not  require  faith  in 
his  word  of  the  immense  majority  of  the  human  race?" 

"  I  say  not  that.  Those  who  cannot  read  he  instructs  by 
his  pastors  and  by  his  Holy  Spirit." 

"But  if  the  instructions  of  pastors  and  the  direct  revela- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  necessary  in  the  case  of  the 
larger  part  of  mankind,  how  can  you  say  the  Scriptures  are 
sufficient?" 

"  The  Scriptures  are  sufficient." 

"  That  is,  for  whom  they  suffice,  and  when  and  where 
they  are  not  insufficient !  That  can  hardly  be  questioned. 
But  let  us  confine  ourselves  to  those  who  can  read,  and  who 
claim  to  be  teachers  among  Protestants,  so  called.  These 
all  admit  the  Scriptures  contain  the  whole  revealed  word  ? " 

"  They  do. " 

"That  they  are  the  sole  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  Vs 

"Certainly." 

"  And  that  the  word  revealed  in  them  is  clear  and  mani- 
fest I '" 

"  Unquestionably." 

"And  that  only  what  is  clear  and  manifest  is  revealed?" 

"  Be  it  so." 

"  Then  they  all  agree  as  to  what  the  word  is? " 

"  No;  I  am  BOlTy  to  say  they  do  not." 

"T1mt<:  is  disagreement,  then, — some  saying  the  word  is 
one  thing,  others  saying  it  is  not  that,  but  something  elso? " 

"  Bat  there  i    no  honest  disagreement;  for  the  matter  is 
r  and  manifest,  sod  none   who  <]<>  not  wilfully  cloao 
their  eyes  t * »  the  truth  can  mistake  it." 

M  Ajre  all  parties  dishonei  I  I " 

«  W 

"  Which  is  the  honest,  which  the  dishonest  party?" 

"The  orthodox  party  is  the  honest  party." 
Which  party  is  that!" 

"The  one  which  believes  what,  and  only  what,  is  clearly 
and  manifestly  revealed." 


36 


THE    TWO    BROTHERS. 


"  So  say  all  parties  ;  but  which  is  that  party  ? " 

"  The  Scriptures  must  decide." 

"But  the  dispute  is  as  to  what  the  Scriptures  teach. 
They,  by  the  very  terms  of  the  supposition,  have  already 
been  appealed  to,  and  each  party  has  obtained  a  decision  in 
its  own  favor.  The  question  now  is,  Which  is  the  true 
answer  ?     What  is  the  decision  of  the  court  ? " 

"  Let  the  Scriptures  be  appealed  to  again." 

"  That  avails  nothing ;  for  they  decide  always  in  precisely 
the  same  terms,  and  the  dispute  remains  always  the  same. 

"  But  the  dispute  is  not  honest." 

"  Be  it  so.  But  who  is  honest,  who  dishonest,  you  or 
your  opponents  ?  You  charge  them  with  dishonesty,  and 
say  the  matter  is  clear  and  manifest  as  you  believe  ;  they  re- 
tort and  say  it  is  clear  and  manifest  as  they  believe.  Which 
am  I  to  believe  % " 

"  Neither ;  but  read  the  Scriptures  and  decide  for  your- 
self." 

"  And  suppose  I  decide  against  both  of  you  ?  There  will 
then  be  three  sects  instead  of  two.  Why  shall  I  be  counted 
the  honest  party  rather  than  you  or  your  opponents,  they 
rather  than  you,  you  rather  than  they,  either  of  you  rather 
than  I?" 

"  But  the  matter  is  clear  and  manifest  to  all  who  do  not 
wilfully  close  their  eyes  to  the  light." 

"  With  all  my  heart ;  but  who  are  they  who  wilfully 
close  their  eyes  to  the  light  ? " 

"The  Scriptures B 

"  They  have  given  their  decision,  and  nothing  is  decided, 
for  the  dispute  is  as  to  what  they  decide." 

"Evidently  they  cannot  be  good  orthodox  Protestants 
who  teach  doctrines  repugnant  to  those  of  the  Protestant 
reformation." 

"  Do  you  abandon  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures,  then, 
and  call  in  the  aid  of  Protestant  tradition  ? " 

"  I  do  not  abandon  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures,  but 
I  maintain  that  what  is  clearly  and  manifestly  repugnant  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  reformers  cannot  be  clearly  and  mani- 
festly revealed  in  the  Scriptures." 

"  Your  rule  of  faith,  then,  is  the  Scriptures  understood 
according  to  the  reformers  ? " 

"  I  hold  the  Scriptures  alone  are  the  rule  of  faith,  but  I 
compare  my  understanding  of  the  Scriptures  with  the  teach- 
ings of  the  reformers." 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS.  37 

"  And  if  it  coincide  with  what  they  taught,  you  hold  that 
you  rightly  understand  the  Scriptures,  and  believe  what  is 
clearly  and  manifestly  revealed  ? " 

"  Verv  well." 

"  If  the  Scriptures  alone  are  the  rule,  this  appeal  to  the 
reformers  is,  if  admissible,  unnecessary ;  if  it  is  necessary, 
and  you  cannot  say  that  you  rightly  understand  the  Script- 
ures till  you  have  brought  your  understanding  of  them  to 
the  test  of  the  reformers,  you  cannot  say  the  Scriptures 
alone  are  sufficient,  or  are  alone  your  rule  of  faith.  You 
then  make  the  reformers,  not  the  Scriptures,  the  test  of  the 
word." 

"  I  do  not  make  the  reformers  the  test  of  the  word.  I 
love,  honor,  and  revere  the  reformers  as  great  and  good  men, 
raised  up  by  God  in  his  providence  to  deliver  his  people 
from  the  bondage  of  Rome,  to  arrest  the  tide  of  papal  cor- 
ruptions, roll  back  the  darkness  which  was  gathering  over 
the  world,  restore  the  preaching  of  the  word,  and  save  the 
Christian  religion  from  utter  banishment  from  the  face  of 
the  earth  ;  but  they  were  men,  subject  to  the  common  frail- 
ties of  our  nature,  and  I  follow  tnem  only  so  far  as  they 
follow  Christ,  who  bids  me  call  no  man  father  upon  earth, 
for  one  is  my  Blaster  in  heaven." 

■  In  order  to  ascertain  when  and  where  the  reformers  fol- 
low Christ,  you  bring  the  reformers  to  the  test  of  theScript- 
i " 

"  Precisely.     I  am  to  obey  God  rather  than  men." 

on  subject  your  understanding  of  the  Scriptures  to 
the  teal  of  the  reformers,  and  the  reformers  to  the  test  of 
your  understanding  of  the  Scriptures.  If  you  agree  with 
them,  yon  are  right;  if  they  agree  with  yon,  they  are  right. 
Thus  yon  prove  your  understanding  by  theirs,  and  theirs  by 

are  I " 

"  I  do  no  such  thing.    The  Bible  is  the  religion  of  Prot- 
the  Bible  alone,  and  I  am  nol  obliged  to  consult  tho 
irmen  in  order  to  ascertain  what  is  clearly  and  manifestly 
ealed." 

"Then  you  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  reformers,  and 
may  at  dismiss  them  to  their  own  place." 

"That  is,  yon  would  say  tin-  reformers,  those  great  and 
v  men,  are  gone  to  hell  j n 

"  If  thai  is  their  own  place,  not  otherwise." 

"  This  is  too  bad.  Von  know  I  love,  honor,  and  revero 
the  reformers,  and  it  La  no  more  than  what  you  owe  aa  a 


38 


THE   TWo    BROTHERS. 


gentleman,  not  to  say  a  Christian,  while  conversing  with  mer 
to  treat  them  and  my  own  feelings  with  some  little  respect." 
"Very  well  said,  my  most  courteous  and  gentlemanly 
brother.  Happy  is  he  who  practises  as  well  as  preaches. 
You  know  I  love  and  revere  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  the 
immaculate  spouse  of  the  Lamb,  and  the  joyful  mother  of 
all  the  faithful ;  and  yet  you  have  not  hesitated  to  call  her 
the  '  Mystery  of  Iniquity,'  '  Antichrist,'  '  the  "Whore  of 
Babylon,' '  a  cage  of  unclean  birds,'  &c.  Where  was  your 
regard  for  my  feelings  ?  And  what  right  have  you  to  com- 
plain, if  there  be  meted  to  you  the  measure  you  mete? 
But  you  will  not  receive  such  measure  from  Catholics,  for 
they  have  studied  in  the  school  of  Christ,  and  learned,  when 
reviled,  not  to  revile  again.  I  said  nothing  against  the 
reformers,  offered  no  opinion  as  to  their  final  doom.  It  is 
not  mine  to  judge  them.  But  if  they,  Judas-like,  betrayed 
their  Master,  rebelled  against  the  church  of  God,  and  re- 
fused to  obey  the  pastors  the  Holy  Ghost  had  set  over  them, 
and  died  unrepentant,  I  need  not  tell  you  what  is  and  must 
be  their  doom,  or  that  of  all  who  partake  in  their  evil  deeds, 
if  they  die  unreconciled  to  God.  It  is  no  pleasant  thought, 
but  you  called  it  up,  not  I." 

"  So  Catholics  send  all  Protestants  to  hell ! " 
"  All  good  Catholics  do  all  in  their  power  to  prevent  their 
Protestant  friends  and  neighbours  from  sending  themselves 
there.  But  suppose  we  waive  questions  of  this  sort  for  the 
present.  "We  shall  be  better  able  to  discuss  them  after  we 
have  determined  what  Protestantism  is,  and  when  inquiring 
whether  it  is  true  or  false,  from  heaven  or  from  hell, — is  a 
safe  way  of  salvation,  or  only  the  way  that  leadeth  to  per- 
dition. It  is  no  idle  question,  my  brother,  we  are  discussing. 
It  involves  eternal  consequences.  If  Protestantism  be  not 
of  God,  if  it  be  not  that  one,  true,  holy  religion  which  he 
revealed  from  the  beginning,  which  he  has  commanded  to 
be  taught  to  all  nations,  and  which  he  has  promised  to  be 
with,  to  protect,  and  to  bless  all  days  unto  the  consum- 
mation of  the  world,  I  need  not  tell  you  what  must  in- 
evitably be  your  doom,  if  living  and  dying  where  and  as 
you  are,  or  what  you  have  but  too  much  reason  to  fear  is 
the  doom  of  those  you  have  nursed  in  your  bosom,  so 
tenderly  loved,  and  for  wrhom  your  tears  are  still  flowing." 
"  Are  you  a  priest  ?  You  talk  like  one." 
"  Perhaps  nearly  as  much  of  one  as  yourself." 
"Singular!     I  never  thought  of  that  before.     Bpon  my 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 


39 


word,  I  believe  you  are  a  Romish  priest,  perhaps  even  a 
Jesuit." 

"  If  either,  you  must  believe  me  able  to  keep  my  own 
counsel.  It  is  enougli  at  present  for  you  to  see  in  me  plain 
Jack  Milwood,  your  elder  brother,  who,  may  be,  knows  a 
great  deal  more  about  you  than  you  do  about  him." 

"  I  wish,  John,  you  would  give  me  the  history  of  your 
life  since  you  left  home.  It  must  be  full  of  interest,  and  I 
should  really  like  to  hear  it." 

"  Rather  than  exert  all  your  wit  and  skill  in  defining 
Protestantism?  But  when  we  have  disposed  of  Protestant- 
ism, perhaps, — but  at  present  we  must  return  to  the  ques- 
tion." 

"  No,  no,  I  insist  on  the  life  and  adventures  of  John  Mil- 
wood,  eldest  son  of  the  late  Jeremiah  Milwood " 

"  And  brother  of  the  distinguished  James  Milwood,  the 

Reverend  pastor  of ,  and  chief  of  the  Protestant  League 

for  the  conversion  of  the  pope  and  the  suppression  of 
popery,  and  who.  when  questioned,  could  not  tell  what  he 
meant  by  Protestantism.  No,  no,  brother,  let  us  finish  our 
definition  of  Protestantism  first" 

"I  have  given  you  definitions  enough  and  more  than 
enough  already,  and.  you  ought  to  be  able  to  suit  yourself 
witli  BOme  one  of  them." 

'•  I  Jut  it  is  not  what  suits  me,  but  what  suits  you.  AVhich 
of  these  numerous  definitions  do  you  finally  settle  down 
upon  i" 

"  Protestantism  is  what  and  only  what  is  clearly  and  man- 
■  I." 
And  wli:it  La  that?     Is  it  what  you  teach   or  what  Mr. 
Silvertone  h  aches  i " 

••  Mr.  Silvertone  is  a  Sodnian." 

••  W'i  it  then  1  I  toes  he  not  believe  all  that  is  clearly  and 
manifestly  revealed  1 " 

••  No,  he  doea  not." 

••  !!■■  sayfl  In'  does;  and  why  am  1  to  believe  yon  rather 
than  him  ' 

•■  Re  id  and  decide  for  youn  elf." 

"Thentheword  i  whal  is  clearly  and  manifestly  revealed 
to  ,//.  ;  hut  why  what  i  clearly  and  manifestly  revealed  to 
me  rather  than  to  you,  or  to  you  rather  than  to  Mr. 
Silvertone  I " 

••  Mr.  Silvertone,  I  t-ll  you,ie  a  Socinian, and  denies  what 
have  always  and  everywhere  been  held  t<>  be  the  greal 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  '  h 


40  THE   TWO    BBOTHERS. 

"  If  you  say  that,  you  appeal  to  Catholic  tradition.  Is 
your  rule  of  faith  incomplete  without  Catholic  tradition? 
But  if  you  allege  Catholic  tradition  against  Mr.  Silvertone,  he 
alleges  it  against  you  ;  for  the  same  tradition  that  condemns 
him  condemns  you.  You  cannot  say  he  errs  because  he 
teaches  what  is  repugnant  to  Catholic  tradition,  without 
condemning  yourself  and  all  Protestants." 

"  But  the  points  on  which  he  is  condemned  are  funda- 
mental points;  those  on  which  we  are  condemned,  if  we 
are  condemned,  are  not  fundamental." 

"  You  forget  Toby  and  his  dog." 

"  No  more  of  Toby  and  his  dog." 

"  Honestly,  brother,  have  so-called  Protestants  ever  been 
able  to  agree  as  to  what  is  clearly  and  manifestly  revealed  ? " 

"  In  truth,  they  have  not." 

"  And  are  as  far  from  agreeing  as  ever  ? " 

"  Apparently  so." 

"  Then,  in  point  of  fact,  they  have  never  been  able  to> 
agree  among  themselves  as  to  what  Protestantism  really  is  ? " 

"  Such,  it  must  be  owned,  is  the  fact." 

"  The  great  reason,  then,  why  you  have  found  it  so  diffi- 
cult to  tell  me  what  it  is,  is  that  what  it  is  has  never  yet 
been  determined  ? " 

"  Possibly." 

"  Since  I  would  rather  relieve  than  aggravate  your  em- 
barrassment, allow  me  to  suggest  that  you  define  Protes- 
tantism to  be  what  all  who  assert  the  sufficiency  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  maintain  them  to  be  the  sole  and  sufficient 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  agree  to  accept  as  clearly  and 
manifestly  revealed.  This  would  make  agreement  the 
test  of  clear  and  manifest,  and  then  you  can  say  the  word 
is  that  which  is  clearly  and  manifestly  revealed,  and  which 
nobody  disputes,  which  never  has  been  disputed,  and  is  not 
likely  to  be  disputed." 

"  There  is,  undoubtedly,  a  tendency  among  those  com- 
monly regarded  as  orthodox  Protestants  to  say  this,  and 
several  distinguished  actors  in  the  recent  movement  against 
Home  have  proposed  that  we  should  say  this  and  make  it  the 
basis  of  our  alliance.  It  has,  I  own,  some  plausibility,  and 
one  would  naturally  say  what  is  disputed  cannot,  while 
what  is  not  disputed  must,  be  clear  and  manifest.  But 
though  I  am  far  from  being  a  bigot,  and  would  encourage 
the  largest  liberty  compatible  with  essentially  religious  faith, 
I  cannot  accept  your  suggestion.     It  is  the  Socinian  ground, 


THE    TWO    BROTHERS.  41 

and  would  place  all  sects  who  profess  to  be  Christians  on  the 
same  level.  The  Unitarian,  who  denies  the  Holy  Trinity 
and  Incarnation,  would  be  as  orthodox  as  he  who  believes 
them  ;  and  the  Universalist,  who  denies  future  rewards  and 
punishments,  would  be  as  sound  in  the  faith  as  they  who 
believe  the  righteous  will  enter  into  life  eternal,  but  the 
wicked  will  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment.  Nor  is 
this  all.  I  am  unable  to  find  any  distinctively  Christian  doc- 
trines which  all,  who  would  in  such  a  case  be  rallied  under  the 
Protestant  banner,  really  agree  in  accepting;  for  I  am  not 
aware  of  a  single  one  which  some  professed  Protestant  has 
not  controverted.  So,  were  we  to  adopt  the  suggestion, 
there  would  be  no  revealed  truth  which  would  not  bo 
abandoned  as  non-essential,  and  nothing  above  mere  natural 
religion  to  be  held  to  be  essential." 

"  So  the  various  Protestant  sects,  taken  altogether,  have 
denied  the  whole  Gospel,  and  left  nothing  but  mere  natural 
religion  undisputed." 

"  Not  even  that,  in  fact,  for  German  and  American  tran- 
scendentalists  question  essential  portions  of  even  natural 
religion." 

"  it  is  a  hard  case,  brother,  and  I  do  not  see  that  I  can 
help  you." 

CIIAPTER  V. 

Protestant  controversialists  are  well  hit  off  in  Lessing's 
Fable  of  the  Poodle  and  QreyhowruL     "  '  How  our  race  is 
degenerated   in  this   country!'  said   one.  daya  far-travelled 
poodle  to  his  friend  the  greyhound.     '  In  those  distant  re- 
ins which  men  <m11  the  Indies,  there  is  still  the  genuine 
ed  of  hounds,  — hound-,  my  brother,  (you will  Dotbelieve 
it,  and  >•<•!  1  have   sen  it  with  mj  own  eyes,)  who  do  oot  fear 
attack  the  lion  and  grapple  with  him.'     (Do  they  over- 
come him  r  asked  the  prudent  greyhound.   w  ( Overcome  him  ! 
Wl        to  thai  I  cannol  exact!)  say;  bu1  only  think,  a  lion 

eked!'   ( But,'  continued  the  greyhound,  '  if  these  bo 
ed  houndc  of  yours  do  not  overcome  the  lion  when  they  at* 
.  him.  they  are  do  better  than  we,  bul  a  great  deal  more 
stupid."*     Only  think,  the  church  attacked  I     Attack  her 

boldly,  With  or  without  -n>    •      .  and  you  arc  sun'  of  the  ad 
miration  of  all      the  po<    111    , 

When  the  infamous  Danton  wt  ed  by  what  means  the 
pitiable  minority  he  headed   were  able  to  maintain  their 


•1-  THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 

Reign  of  Terror  and  paralyze  the  millions  opposed  to  him, 
he  answered, — "  By  audacity,  audacity,  audacity."  Prot- 
estant  leaders  understand  very  well  the  advantages  of  audac- 
ity, and  that,  if  one  is  only  bold  and  unprincipled  enough 
to  throw  out  grave  charges  against  the  purest  and  noblest 
cause  which  ever  existed,  he  will  not  fail  of  multitudes  to 
credit  him.  Groundless  objections,  if  not  susceptible  of  an 
easy  or  a  popular  refutation,  are  as  much  to  their  purpose  as 
any.  They  serve  to  attack  the  lion,  to  put  Catholics  on  their 
defence,  and  that  is  the  same  as  a  victory.  A  child  may  start 
an  objection  which  the  ablest  and  most  learned  divine  can- 
not answer — to  the  child.  A  very  ordinary  man  may  urge 
an  objection  to  some  article  of  faith  which  will  demand,  in 
him  who  is  to  receive  the  answer,  as  well  as  in  him  who  is 
to  give  it,  for  its  refutation,  the  most  rare  and  extensive  eru- 
dition, and  familiarity  with  the  deepest  principles  and  nicest 
distinctions  of  scholastic  theology  and  philosophy.  No  small 
part  of  the  objections  urged  against  the  sacred  mysteries  of 
the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  the 
Real  Presence,  and  Transubstantiation,  are  objections  which 
an  ordinary  mind  may  understand,  but  which  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  answer  to  the  general  reader, — especially  if  the  gener- 
al reader  be  a  Protestant.  Such  objections  are  exactly  to  the 
purpose  of  the  Protestant  controversialists,  and  gain  them  the 
applause  of — the  poodles. 

These  controversialists  it  is  not  to  be  presumed  are  igno- 
rant that  all  the  objections  of  past  and  present  times  to  the 
church  have  been  refuted,  and  unanswerably  refuted  ;  but, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  they  have,  in  numerous  in- 
stances, been  refuted  only  to  the  professional  reader.  The 
nature  of  the  objection,  though  itself  popular,  precluded  a 
popular  reply.  In  all  such  cases,  Protestant  controversialists 
have  only  to  deny  that  any  reply  has  been  given,  or  to  assert 
that  the  one  given  is  inconclusive,  and  they  come  off 
triumphant.  This  is  their  common  practice.  Nothing  is 
more  common  than  to  meet,  in  Protestant  controversial 
works,  objections,  which  have  been  refuted  a  hundred  times, 
reiterated  without  a  hint  that  any  reply  has  ever  been  even 
attempted,  and  urged  in  a  tone  of  confidence,  as  if  Catholics 
themselves  conceded  them  to  be  unanswerable.  The  impu- 
dence of  Protestant  polemics  in  this  respect  is  notorious  and 
undeniable. 

That  this  method  of  conducting  a  controversy,  on  matters 
in  which  no  one  has  any  real  interest  in  being  deceived  or  in 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS.  43 

deceiving,  is  fair,  honorable,  or  just,  it  is  not  presumed  any 
Protestant  is  silly  enough  to  pretend ;  but,  filled  with  an  in- 
veterate hatred  of  the  church,  and  having  decided  that  it  is 
the  church  of  Antichrist,  Protestant  leaders,  apparently,  re- 
gard  themselves  at  liberty  to  make  use  of  any  means  for  its 
overthrow  which  promise  to  be  successful,  and  have  no  scru- 
ple in  resorting  to  artifices  which  would  shock  the  moral 
.-'■use  of  an  ordinary  heathen.  The  Catholic  writer  who 
should  give  a  faithful  account  of  their  nefarious  conduct  in 
their  war  on  the  church,  would  find  it  harder  to  sustain  him- 

E  with  his  friends  than  against  his  enemies;  and  he  would 
hardly  fail  to  he  condemned  by  his  own  communion  as  a 
calumniator.  Their  conduct  is  so  foreign  to  all  the  habits 
and  conceptions  of  a  simple-minded,  honest  Catholic,  that 
one  needs  to  have  been  a  Protestant  a  great  part  of  his  life 
to  be  able  to  conceive  it  possible  for  beings  having  the  hu- 
man form,  and  pretending  to  some  respect  for  religion  and 
morals,  to  he  guilty  of  so  wide  a  departure  from  all  that  is 
true,  just,  and  honorable.  Hence  the  great  tenderness  and 
forbearance  with  which  Catholics  usually  treat  Protestants, 
and  the  undeserved  credit  they  are  accustomed  to  give  them 
for  a  partial  degree,  at  least,  of  fairness  and  candor. 

At  first  view,  one  is  at  a  loss  to  account  for  thr  sudden 
rise  and  rapid  Bpread  of  the  Protestant  rebellion  in  the  six- 

ith  century.     Knowing  by  infallible  faith,  that  the  church 
i-  of  I  iod,  the  immaculate  spouse  of  the  Lamb,  and  that  she 
has  truth,  wisdom,  justice,  sanctity,  reason,  evidence,  on  her 
side,  the  Catholic  is  astonished  al  30  singular  a  phenomenon; 
but  as  he  penetrates  deeper  into  that   mystery  of  iniquitv, 
and  becomes  familiar  with  the  character  of  the  rebel  chiefs, 
and  the  means  they  adopted,  his  astonishmenl  ceases,  and  his 
ider  is,  not  thai  the  success  was  bo  great,  but  that  it  was 
not  greater, — thai  the  revolt  was  so  boos  arrested  and  con- 
fined within  limits  that  it   has   not    afl  yel   been  aide  to  over- 
lb  ithing  marvellous  in  the  success  <'\  thi 
!  chiefs,  hut  he  is  Btruck  with  the  manifesl  interposition 
livine  Providence  to  confound  their  language,  to  divide 
their  coun           idefeal  their  plans,  to  arresl  t  heir  progress,  to 
hi-  church,  to  show  Ins  unfailing  love  for  her,  and  to 
ment  her  power  and  glory.     Proti   tantism,  as  relates  to 
mfined  within  narrower  limits  than  it  w 

after  the    death   of    Luther,    while  the  church    has 

gone  on  enlarging  her  borders,  and  never  al  any  former  pe- 
riod mi- ot  the  faithful  sogreal  as  it  is  n< 


44 


TIIK   TWO   BROTHERS. 


They  who  .attack  existing  institutions,  especially  if  those 
institutions  are  wise  and  salutary,  may  always  count  on  the 
admiration  and  applause  of  all  the  poodles.  Fixed  and  au- 
thoritative institutions  are  offensive  to  the  natural  man. 
They  are  a  restraint,  and  no  man,  save  so  far  as  assisted  and 
subdued  by  grace,  loves  restraint ;  and  there  is  no  one  that 
has  not  a  natural  repugnance  to  whatever  curbs  his  lawless 
desires  and  licentious  passions,  or  interposes  an  obstacle  to- 
his  living  as  he  lists.  In  every  community, — because  in  every 
natural  man, — there  is  always  a  predisposition,  more  or  less 
manifest,  to  rebel  against  the  existing  order,  and  to  welcome 
and  adhere  to  those  who  are  prepared  to  war  against  it,  es- 
pecially to  credit  whatever  may  be  advanced  to  its  prejudice. 
They  who  attack  the  existing  order,  appealing  to  this  pre- 
disposition, have  the  appearance  of  attacking  tyranny  and 
oppression,  and  of  being  champions  of  freedom  and  Justice. 
This  fact  renders  them  respectable,  almost  sacred,  in  tlie  eyes 
of  the  multitude.  Their  position,  moreover,  permits  them 
to  assume  a  bold  and  daring  tone,  to  make  broad  and  sweep- 
ing assertions,  and  to  forego  clear  and  exact  statements,  and 
close  and  rigid  logic.  They  can  declaim,  denounce,  be  im- 
passioned, and  affect  all  the  eloquence  of  virtuous  indigna- 
tion. The  eloquence  of  denunciation  is  the  easiest  thing  in 
the  world  to  command  ;  for  it  appeals  directly  to  those  ele- 
ments of  our  nature  which  lie  nearest  the  surface  and  which 
are  the  most  easily  moved,  and  weak  men  prefer  it  and 
excel  in  it. 

But  he  who  defends  authority  labors  always  under  a  dis- 
advantage. He  has  an  unpopular  cause.  To  the  superficial, 
— and  they  are  always  the  great  majority, — he  is  the  advo- 
cate of  tyranny,  the  enemy  of  liberty,  warring  against  the 
best  interests  and  true  dignity  and  glory  of  his  race.  He 
can  appeal  to  no  popular  passion,  use  no  burning  words,  and 
pour  forth  no  strains  of  indignant  eloquence.  He  cannot 
speak  to  the  multitude.  He  must  speak  to  sober  sense,  to 
prudent  judgment,  and  aim  to  convince  the  reason,  instead 
of  moving  the  sensibility,  or  inflaming  the  passions.  His 
words,  to  all  but  the  few,  are  cold  and  spiritless,  tame  and 
commonplace.  For  the  foaming  tankard  or  sparkling  gob- 
let, with  which  the  popular  declaimer  regales  his  auditorsT 
he  has  only  simple  water  from  the  spring.  He  must  be 
subdued  in  hi.-  tone,  measured  in  his  speech,  exact  in  his 
statements,  rigid  in  his  reasoning,  and  few  only  will  listen 
to  him,  and  fewer  still  can  appreciate  him.     lie  who  for 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 


45- 


years  lias  been  on  the  side  opposed  to  authority,  and  by  his 
bold  and  daring  declamation  roused  up  a  whole  ocean  of 
popular  passion,  and  at  every  word  brought  an  echo  from 
the  universal  heart  of  humanity,  no  sooner  finds  himself 
on  the  other  side,  than  all  his  marvellous  eloquence  is  lost, 
and  he  is  pronounced,  by  the  very  public  which  had  hailed 
him  as  a  second  Cicero  or  Demosthenes,  cold  and  weak, 
a  Samson  shorn  of  his  locks  and  grinding  in  the  mill  of 
the  Philistines.  No  matter  how  true  and  just  his  thought, 
how  deep  and  searching  his  wit,  how  wise  and  prudent  his 
counsel,  how  lucid  and  exact  his  statements,  how  clear  and 
cogent  his  reasoning,  he  can  excite  no  passion,  move  no 
sensibility,  and  bring  no  popular  echo.  The  spell  is  broken  ; 
his  magic  is  over,  and  his  power  to  charm  is  gone  for  ever. 
He  is  no  Indian  hound,  fearing  not  to  attack  the  lion,  and 
the  poodles  see  nothing  in  him  to  admire. 

Then,  again,  the  poodles  regard  the  lion  attacked  as  the 
lion  vanquished.  They  hold  every  objection  boldly  and 
confidently  made  to  be  true,  till  it  is  proved  to  be  false. 
In  this  fact,  in  the  tendency  of  the  great  majority  to  regard 
every  objection  made  to  existing  authority  as  well  founded 
till  the  contrary  is  shown,  lies  the  secret  of  the  Protestant 
reformation.  To  this  the  reformers  owed  their  brilliant 
success.  They  well  understood  that  their  objections  to  the 
church  would  be  credited  by  multitudes,  till  refuted.  It 
was  a  matter  of  little  importance,  so  far  as  their  success  was 
concerned,  whether  their  objections  were  true  or  false. 
What  they  wanted  was  simply  objections  easily  made,  but 
not  easily  refuted, — susceptible  of  being  proposed  in  a  pop- 
ular form,  but  not  susceptible  of  a  popular  answer.  Such 
objections  they  employed  their  wit  in  inventing,  and  their 
skill  and  activity  in  circulating,  A  lie,  happily  conceived, 
adroitly  told,  and  well  .-tuck  to,  was  in  their  case  hardly,  if 
at  all,  inferior  to  the  truth;  and  it  must,  be  conceded  that 
they  had  a  marvellous  facility  in  inventing  lies,  and  in  ad- 
hering to  them  when  they  had  once  told  them.  Whoever 
coolly  examines  their  objections  to  the  church  will  readily 
perceive  that  they  are  all  framed  with  respect,  not  to  truth, 
but  to  the  difficulty  of  refutation,  and  on  the  principle  that 
a  lie  i  id  i    the  truth  till  it,  is  contradicted.    Glo- 

riously did    they  chuckle,  we  may   fancy,  when  the  "Father 

of  lies"  helped  them  to  a  popular  objection,  to  which  no 
popular  answer  could  be  returned.  Boldly,  or  with  brazen 
impudence,  they  threw  it  out,  sent  it,  forth  on  its  errand  of 


*6  THE    TWO    BE0THEB8. 

mischief,  and  then  laughed  at  the  heavy  answer  which,  in 
process  of  time,  came  lumbering  after  it.  The  objection 
waa  made  in  a  few  words,  on  a  loose  sheet,  and  wafted  by 
the  wind  of  controversy  through  every  land,  town,  village, 
ami  hamlet,  to  every  door,  and  became  universally  known ; 
the  answer  followed  in  a  ponderous  quarto  or  folio,  all 
bristling  with  scholastic  formulas  and  scholastic  distinctions, 
formidable  even  to  the  professional  reader.  Its  circulation 
was  necessarily  limited;  few  only  heard  of  it;  fewer  read 
it,  and  still  fewer  were  able  to  appreciate  it.  The  authors 
of  the  objection  safely  ignored  it,  or,  if  they  could  not,  they 
misrepresented  it,  denied  its  conclusiveness,  and  even  made 
it  the  occasion  of  a  new  triumph  with  their  followers.  Or, 
when  they  could  neither  conceal  the  fact  of  the  answer  nor 
its  conclusiveness,  they  could  still  count  on  all  the  poodles, 
who  would  insist  that  there  must  have  been  something  ..in 
the  objection,  or  else  it  would  not  have  required  so  elabo- 
rate and  so  learned  a  refutation.  The  lion  had  been  at- 
tacked,— and  that  was  something. 

"  Where  there  is  much  smoke,  there  is  some  fire,"  says 
the  popular  proverb.  Surely  there  must  be  something 
wrong  in  the  church,  or  so  much  would  not,  and  could  not, 
be  said  against  her.  Whether,  therefore,  the  objections 
actually  urged  be  precisely  true  or  not,  it  is  evident  the 
church  is  not  unobjectionable,  and  if  not  unobjectionable, 
we  are  justified  in  rejecting  her.  So  reason  the  poodles, — 
forgetting  that  our  blessed  Lord  himself  was  everywhere 
spoken  against,  was  called  a  glutton  and  a  drunkard,  the 
friend  of  publicans  and  sinners,  a  blasphemer,  a  seditious 
fellow,  a  fool,  said  to  be  possessed  of  the  devil,  and  finally 
crucified  between  two  thieves  as  a  malefactor.  Here  was 
smoke  enough, — was  there  also  some  fire  ?  Here  were  ob- 
jections enough  raised,  charges  enough  preferred, — was 
there  also  some  truth  in  them  'i  Where  is  the  blasphemous 
wretch  that  dare  think  it?  If  they  have  called  the  Master 
of  the  house  Beelzebub,  how  much  more  them  of  his  house- 
hold !  If  so  they  have  accused  the  Lord  himself,  how  much 
more  his  church  ?  To  one  competent  to  reason  on  the  sub- 
.  the  grave  character  and  multiplicity  of  the  objections 
!*ed  against  the  church  are  an  evidence  that  she  is  God's 
church.  "Will  you  tell  me  what  books  I  may  read  to 
jome  acquainted  with  the  Catholic  faith?"  said,  the 
other  day,  an  intelligent  Protestant  to  the  writer.  "I  am 
wholly  ignorant  of  the  Catholic  Church,  but  I  hear,  every- 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 


47 


•where,  so  much  said  against  it,  that  I  cannot  help  thinking 
there  must  be  something  good  in  it,  and  that  possibly  it  is 
the  true  church."  This  lady,  brought  up  a  rigid  Calvinist, 
through  God's  grace,  had  learned  to  reason  far  more  justly 
than  she  had  been  taught  by  her  Protestant  masters,  and,  if 
true  to  the  grace  she  has  received,  will  ere  long  be  admitted 
into  the  "  Communion  of  Saints."  But  she  is  not  one  of 
the  r oodles  ;  and  the  reformers  preferred,  and  their  succes- 
sors prefer,  the  admiration  of  these  to  the  approbation  of 
the  sober  and  prudent  greyhounds. 

The  policy  of  the  reformers  was  indicated  by  Luther, 
when  he  took  the  discussion  of  theological  questions  out  of 
the  schools  and  from  the  tribunal  of  professional  theolo- 
gians, and  brought  it  before  the  unprofessional  public.  I 
picked  up,  the  other  day,  in  a  steamboat,  a  flaming  quack 
advertisement.  It  appeared  that  the  advertiser  had,  as  he 
alleged,  discovered  an  entirely  new  medical  system,  which 
placed  all  the  regular  mediciners,  from  JEsculapius  down, 
quite  in  the  wrong.  lie  had  challenged  the  regular  prac- 
titioners to  a  discussion  of  the  merits  of  their  respective 
systems.  The  challenge  had  been  accepted,  but  on  condi- 
tion that  the  discussion  should  be  before  a  jury  of  medical 
men.  The  advertiser  scorned  this  condition.  It  proved 
that  the  "regular  doctors"  had  no  confidence  in  their  own 
system ;  for  if  otherwise,  they  would  not  shrink  from  a 
public  discussion.  It  was  an  insult  to  the  public,  and  he 
would  not  submit  to  it.  He  was  ready  and  anxious  to  dis- 
cuss the  question  ;  but  he  would  do  it  before  no  prejudiced 
jury  of  professional  men ;  he  would  do  it  openly  before  his 
free  and  enlightened  fellow-eitizens,  who  were  the  only 
proper  tribunal,  lie  trusted  his  fellow-citizens,  the  free 
and  enlightened  public,  would  appreciate  his  motives  in 
refusing  to  be  a  partner  in  offering  BO  gross  an  indignity  to 
their  intelligence  and  impartial  judgment,  and  would  be  at 
qo  Loss  to  understand  why  the  regular  practitioners  had  an- 
ted to  their  acceptance  of  his  challenge  so  insulting  a 
condition. 

Now  here  am  I,  said  I  to  myself,  throwing  down  the  ad- 
rertisement,  at  least  a  fair  average  of  the  popular  intelli- 
gence. I  have  oven  studied,  with  considerable  attention, 
several  branches  of  medical  science ;  and  yet  how  utterly 
unqualified  I  should  be  to  sit  as  judge  on  the  respective 
merits  of  rival  systems!  I  might  listen  to  the  statements 
of  either  |  arty,  but  I  am  t<>o  ignoranl  of  the  general  subject 


48 


THE   TWO    BKOTIIKKS. 


to  be  able  to  perceive  the  bearing  and  real  value  of  the  state- 
ments of  one  or  the  other.  I  might,  indeed,  if  such  should 
happen  to  be  the  case,  perceive  that  this  pretended  discov- 
erer silenced  his  opponent ;  but  I  could  draw  no  inference 
from  that,  for  nothing  is  more  common  than  for  a  man  to 
triumph  through  impudence,  or  because  too  ignorant  to  be 
refuted.  The  proper  judges  of  a  controversy  like  the  one 
here  proposed  are  medical  men  themselves,  as  lawyers  are 
the  proper  judges  of  law  questions.  Indeed,  tne  very 
fact,  that  this  advertiser  refuses  to  argue  his  case  before 
an  audience  of  professional  men,  and  appeals  to  the  unpro- 
fessional public,  is  to  me  full  proof  that  he  is  a  quack, 
and  sufficient  to  decide  me,  without  further  examination, 
against  him.  If  I  need  medical  advice,  I  am  sure  I  shall 
not  call  him  in,  any  more  than  I  would  a  miserable  petti- 
fogger in  an  important  and  intricate  law  case.  I  can  con- 
fide my  health  and  that  of  my  family  to  no  practitioner 
whose  science  and  skill  are  not  superior  to  my  own,  and 
vouched  for  by  those  who  know  more  of  medical  matters 
than  I  do,  and  are  far  better  judges  of  medical  systems  than 
I  am. 

Just  so  would  I  have  reasoned,  if  I  had  been  present, 
when  Luther  made  his  appeal  to  the  unprofessional  public. 
Why  did  he  make  such  appeal  ? .  Because  the  public  at 
large  are  the  proper  tribunal  for  professional  questions  ? 
Because  they  can  really  judge  better,  discriminate  more  ac- 
curately, and  decide  with  more  wisdom  and  justice,  than 
they  who  by  their  profession  are  at  least  somewhat  ac- 
quainted with  the  matters  in  controversy  ?  Because  he  really 
believed  them  the  best  qualified  to  be  judges  ?  No  one  can 
be  so  simple  as  to  believe  it,  so  senseless  as  to  pretend  it. 
Luther  knew  that  loose  statements,  confident  assertions, 
bold  allegations,  and  impassioned  appeals  would  avail  him 
nothing  before  a  jury  of  theological  doctors.  He  knew  that 
there  he  could  not  lie  with  impunity,  and  that  his  "  bellow- 
ing in  bad  Latin  "  would  win  him  no  laurels.  He  may  have 
persuaded  himself,  or  suffered  the  devil  to  persuade  him, — 
and  if  we  may  believe  his  own  statements,  his  colloquies 
•with  the  devil  were  frequent,  and  intimate — that  the  church 
was  wrong ;  but  he  must  have  known  that  the  particular 
objections  he  brought  against  her  were  groundless,  and  that 
it  was  only  by  disregarding  the  established  rules  of  reason- 
ing, and  resorting  to  falsehood  and  sophistry,  confident  as- 
sertions and  bold  and  daring  denunciations,  that  he  could 

Vol.  VI— 19. 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  49 

sustain  himself  or  his  party.  And  these  could  avail  only 
with  the  unprofessional  public,  who  could  never  understand 
the  exact  points  in  question,  perceive  the  bearing,  or  feel 
the  force,  of  strict  logical  arguments.  With  them  eloquence 
would  pass  for  reason,  and  invective  for  argument.  This 
he  knew,  and  hence  his  appeal  from  the  schools  to  the  pub- 
lic at  large.  Hence  have  his  followers  continued  to  appeal 
to  the  multitude,  and  to  leave  truth  and  justice  to  take  care 
of  themselves. 

This  policv,  however,  is  not  without  certain  drawbacks. 
It  answers  admirably  while  the  party  adopting  it  have  noth- 
ing of  their  own,  and  are  mere  Bedouins  of  the  desert,  free 
to  attack  when  and  where  they  please.  But  when  and 
where  they  have  acquired  a  partial  success,  and  wish  to 
abandon  their  wandering  life  and  predatory  warfare,  and 
settle  down  in  fixed  dwellings,  with  something  established 
and  permanent  of  their  own,  they  find  it  unavailing.  Men, 
as  Carlyle  remarks,  cannot  live  without  clothes,  and  surely 
in  this  bleak,  wintry  world  it  is  not  convenient  to  go  naked. 
They  must  and  will  have  something  to  cover  their  naked- 
ness,— some  sort  of  institutions  for  their  protection.  They 
will  cover  themselves  with  aprons  of  fig-leaves,  and  build 
them  a  hut  with  broken  branches,  seek  out  a  cavern  in  the 
rocks,  or  a  hole  in  the  earth,  if  they  can  do  no  better.  They 
must  and  will  have  something  they  call  religion,  some  estab- 
lished mode  of  communion,  real  or  not  real,  with  the  Invis- 
ible. Even  the  atheist  fabricates  to  himself  a  god  of  nature, 
and  renders  it  a  species  of  worship,  and  the  sceptic  seeks  to 
convert  his  scepticism  into  a  creed.  It  is  horrible  to  feel 
one's  self  alone  in  the  world,  abandoned  to  the  blind  work- 
ings of  the  elements,  with  do  Father  in  heaven,  no  brothers 
on  earth,  standing  on  a  mere  point,  surrounded  by  a  univer- 
sal blank  Wo  cannot  endure  it.  Nature  recoils  from  her- 
self,  and  the  soul  shrieks  out,  "O  thou  Great  Unknown, 
have  me  from  myself]  leave  me,  O,  leave  me  not  to  the 
solitude  of  my  own  being  1"     There  is  a  God,  and  a  God 

to  be  worshipped,  Is  written  in  golden  letters  OD  nil  nature, 

and  engraven  as  with  the  point  of  a  diamond  on  every 

heart.       In    vain    would    man    tear   himself    away    from    his 

Maker.  <  to  where  he  will,  be  and  do  what  he  will,  Bleeping 
or  waking,  the  God  that  made  him  and  seeks  his  heart  wooes 
him  with  his  love,  or  pursues  him  with  his  justice.  The 
boldesl  recoil  from  his  justice,  and  quake  before  the  unde- 
fined dread  of  his   vengeance,  and  seek  some  medium  of 


°0  THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 

yielding  the  love,  or  of  providing  a  substitute  for  the  love 
lie  solicits. 

Protestants  went  on  gloriously,  while  they  aimed  at  noth- 
ing hut  to  attack  the  existing  ecclesiastical  order.  The 
means  they  had  chosen  were  just  fitted  to  their  purpose. 
But  when  a  large  number  had  been  seduced  from  their  al- 
legiance, and  found  themselves  homeless,  and  shelterless, 
and  naked  in  this  bleak  world,  a  new  class  of  wants  sprung 
up  to  be  provided  for.  Some  substitute  for  what  had  been 
thrown  away  in  their  madness  was  to  be  sought  out.  Their 
old  arts  and  methods  were  useless  now.  As  soon  as  they 
had  something  with  which  they  were  unwilling  to  part, 
something,  in  a  word,  to  defend,  the  weapons  which  they 
had  forged  were  no  longer  adapted  to  their  purpose,  and 
could  be  turned  against  them  with  murderous  effect.  Thus 
short-sighted  and  self-destructive  is  iniquity  ever. 

Poor  James  experienced  the  truth  of  this,  the  moment  he 
was  called  upon  to  answer  why  he  was  a  Protestant.     The 
question  was  a  novel  one,  and  he  soon  found  that  he  was 
wholly  unprovided  with  a  satisfactory  answer.     He  had 
sought  long  and  earnestly  for  specious  objections  to  the 
church,  but  he  had  entirely  neglected  to  furnish  himself 
with  arguments  for  Protestantism  as  distinguishable  from 
Socinianism  or  infidelity.     Nay,  he  was  unable  even  to  tell, 
save  in  a  negative  sense,  what  he  meant  by  Protestantism. 
Adopt  what  definition  he  would,  it  would  include  either  too 
much  or  too  little.     It  was  too  bad.     Yet  his  natural  pride 
would  not  permit  him  to  yield  to  the  obvious  truth,  that  he 
must  either  be  a  Catholic  or  reject  all  revealed,  if  not  all 
natural,  religion.     With  the  multitude  he  might,  indeed, 
sustain  himself.    There  his  audacity  and  his  eloquence  would 
serve  him,  but  they  were  lost  upon  his  cool  and  logical 
brother.     John  was  no  poodle,  that  was  certain,  and  could 
never  be  made  to  regard  the  lion  attacked  as  the  lion  over- 
come, or  even  to  admire  the  rashness  of  an  attack  where 
there  could  be  no  victory.     What  was  to  be  done  ?     Give 
up  the  point?     That  would  never  do,  and  he  the  virtual 
chief  of  the  Protestant  league  for  the  conversion  of  the 
pope  and  the  suppression  of  popery  !    What  then  ?     Surely 
he  was  the  equal  of  his  brother  in  acquirements,  and  he  had 
always,  in  their  school  days,  been  regarded  as  his  superior 
in  natural  gifts.     He  would  not  believe  that  he  had  the 
weaker  cause.     His  failure,  thus  far,  must  be  owing  to  his 
yielding  the  management  of  the  argument  to  his  brother, 


TIIE   TWO    BROTHERS.  51 

and  his  not  having  been  sufficiently  on  his  guard  against  his 
sophistry  and  Jesuitical  cunning.  Could  he  not  correct  this  ? 
Could  he  not  contrive  to  change  the  issue,  and  throw  the 
burden  of  proof  on  the  Catholic  '(  He  pondered  the  matter 
for  several  weeks,  and  finally  concluded,  that,  if  he  could 
not  define  and  establish  Protestantism,  he  might  at  least  dis- 
prove Catholicity,  and  thus  justify  the  reformers  in  separat- 
ing themselves  from  the  church. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

As  soon  as  James  had  come  to  this  sage  conclusion,  an 
opportunity  was  found  of  renewing  the  discussion.  This 
time  it  was  John  who  opened  it. 

"  Well,  brother,  he  said,  have  you  succeeded  in  finding  a 
definition  of  Protestantism  to  your  mind  ? " 

"  I  wish  to  consider  Protestantism,  now,  only  as  a  protest 
against  the  errors  and  corruptions  of  popery.  Here  you 
affirm  and  I  deny,  and  consequently  the  laboring  oar  is  in 
your  hands." 

"  JSTot  exactly,  my  prudent  brother.  You  affirm  Catho- 
licity is  corrupt.  You  are,  then,  the  accuser,  the  plaintiff 
in  action,  and  must  set  forth  your  charges  and  sustain  them. 
The  principle  of  law  is,  every  man  is  to  be  presumed  inno- 
cent till  proved  guilty.  The  church  must,  therefore,  be  pre- 
sumed innocent  till  the  contrary  is  made  to  appear." 

"  The  church  claims  to  be  an  ambassador  from  God,  and 
to  have  the  right  to  command  ine  in  his  name.  She  must 
bring  credentials  from  God,  before  I  can  be  held  to  hear  or 
obey  her.     I  demand  her  credentials." 

■•  All  in  good  time.  But  not  too  many  things  at  once. 
You  shift  the  <|iiestion  before  you  get  it  fairly  stated.  You 
be.L'in  by  charging  the  church  with  being  corrupt,  and,  with- 
out offering  any  proofs  of  her  corruption,  you  proceed  im- 
mediately to  demand  her  credentials  as  the  ambassador  of 
God.    This  will  not  do.    Corruption  implies  integrity  j  and 

the  plea  that  the  church  is  corrupt  concede.-,  her  credentials, 
and  merely  charges  her  with  exceeding  her  authority,  or 
with  having  abased  it.  This  plea  concedes  her  authority; 
but  the  demand  for  credentials  denie.s  it.  You  cannot, 
therefore,  plead,  at  one  and  the  Bame  time,  want  of  author- 
ity, and  corruption  or  abuse  of  authority.  You  must  elect 
one  or  the  other,  and  confine  yourself  to  the  one  you  elect." 


52  THE  TWO   BROTHERS. 

"  I  am  no  lawyer,  and  do  not  understand  special  plead- 


ing," 


But  you  are  an  educated  man,  and  are  to  be  presumed 
to  understand,  at  least,  the  ordinary  rules  of  logic,  and 
therefore  that  the  same  thing  cannot  be  both  conceded  and 
denied  in  the  same  breath.  You  cannot  say  that  the  church 
is  corrupt,  has  abused  or  misused  her  authority,  and  yet 
deny  her  authority.  When  you  deny  that  she  has  ever  re- 
ceived authority  from  God,  you  declare  her,  in  quantum 
Ecclesia,  a  nullity  from  the  beginning,  and  to  allege  the 
corruption  of  a  nullity  is  absurd. 

"  Be  it  so.  The  Romish  Church  never  received  author- 
ity from  God,  or,  in  other  words,  was  never  divinely  com- 
missioned." 

"  Possession  is  in  law  prima  facie  evidence  of  title.  The 
church  is  in  possession,  and  has  been  so  from  time  imme- 
morial. The  presumption  is,  therefore,  in  her  favor,  and 
you  must  admit  her  title,  or  set  forth  good  and  valid  reasons 
for  contesting  it." 

"  Prescription  does  not  apply  in  the  case  of  the  church." 

"  It  is  admitted  in  law,  and  therefore,  by  the  reason  of 
mankind,  as  a  general  principle.  If  you  deny  its  applica- 
tion in  the  case  of  the  church,  you  allege  an  exception  to 
the  general  rule,  and  must  show  a  reason  for  it." 

"Prescription  does  not  give  an  absolute  title,  but  simply 
a  presumptive  title  against  adverse  claimants.  It  presup- 
poses the  existence  of  the  estate  to  be  conceded,  the  title  of 
which  is  vested  in  some  one,  and  presumes  it  to  be  in  the  pos- 
sessor, unless  the  contrary  is  shown.  But  where  the  exist- 
ence of  the  estate  is  the  matter  in  question,  it  is  idle  to  plead 
possession  or  prescription.  What  is  not  cannot  be  possess- 
ed. The  estate,  in  the  present  case,  is  the  divine  commis- 
sion. Supposing  it  conceded  that  such  a  commission  has  at 
some  time  been  issued,  possession  may,  I  grant,  be  pleaded 
as  prima  facie  evidence  of  title  in  the  possessor.  But  I 
deny  that  such  a  commission  as  the  Romish  Church  claims 
to  have  received  has  ever  been  issued.  You  must  prove, 
therefore,  the  fact  of  such  commission,  before  you  can 
plead  possession  or  prescription." 

u  Possession  implies  the  object  possessed.  Evidence  of 
the  possession  is,  therefore,  evidence  of  the  existence  of  that 
which  is  possessed.  Consequently,  just  in  proportion  as 
there  is  evidence  that  the  church  has  possessed,  or  claimed 
and  exercised,  with  the  general  consent,  the  commission  in 


THE   TWO   BROTIIEKS.  53 

question,  and  as  her  having  claimed  and  exercised  it  with 
this  consent  is  presumptive  proof  of  title  against  adverse 
claimants,  is  there  presumptive  proof  that  the  commission 
has  been  issued." 

"  Quod  nimis  probata  nihil  jprobat.  Your  argument,  if 
it  prove  any  thing,  proves  too  much.  A  pagan  or  a  Ma- 
hometan may  say  as  much." 

"  If  either  paganism  or  Mahometanism  claims  a  similar 
■commission,  and  can,  as  the  church,  be  said  to  be  in  posses- 
sion, the  fact  is,  in  like  manner,  presumptive  evidence  of 
title  till  the  contrary  appears,  I  both  concede  and  contend. 
Nothing  can  generate  nothing.  The  claim  to  a  divine  com- 
mission must  nave  had  some  origin,  and,  on  the  principle  of 
law,  that  every  man  must  be  presumed  innocent  till  proved 
to  be  guilty,  must  be  presumed  to  have  had  a  good  origin 
till  the  contrary  is  proved.  False  religions  imply  the  exist- 
ence of  the  true  religion,  as  counterfeit  coin  implies  the 
genuine.  The  claim  to  divine  commission,  if  it  be  really 
made  by  either  paganism  or  Mahometanism,  is  therefore 
prima  facie  evidence  that  at  some  time,  to  somebody,  a 
divine  commission  has  issued.  If  no  such  commission 
had  ever  been  given,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  it  could  have 
been  claimed.  Xo  one  would  ever  have  falsely  claimed  to 
be  an  ambassador  from  one  court  to  another,  if  no  genuine 
ambassador,  or  nothing  in  the  same  order,  had  ever  been 
known  or  heard  of;  and  the  sending  of  ambassadors  must 
have  become  a  general  custom,  before  any  one,  not  duly 
commissioned,  could  have  conceived  the  project  of  palming 
himself  off  as  one,  or  could  have  hoped  for  any  success  in 
the  attempt  to  do  it.  The  fact  of  possession,  where  it  could 
be  pleaded,  would  he  a  presumption  of  title  in  the  Mahom- 

■I  or  the  pagan,  m  like  manner  as  it  is  in  the  case  of  the 
Catholic,     Hence  the  church,  where  she  has  never  been  in 

I ion,  when  presenting  herself  as  an  adverse  claimant-, 

always  produces  her  credentials,  and  gives  good  and  valid 
one  why  the  presenl  occupanl  should  be  ousted  and  she 

placed  in  possession.  I  admit,  therefore,  all  that,  the  argu- 
ment implies,  and  deny  that  it  proves  too  much." 

" But  admit  it,  and  every  mad  enthusiasi  who  claims  to 
be  divinely  commissioned  must  he  presumed  to  bo  so  till 
the  contrary  is  shown." 

"  Not  at  all  Bis  claim  to  a  divine  commission  is,  if  you 
will,  a  presumption  that  at  some  time,  to  somebody,  a  di- 
vine coiiim:    ion  ha  ed;but  not  that  it  has  issued  to 


64  THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 

him  ;  for  lie  is  not  and  never  has  been  in  possession.    lie  must 
show  a  reason  for  his  claim,  before  it  can  be  admitted." 

"  At  least,  the  principle  applies  to  Protestants  as  well  as 
to  pagans  and  Mahometans,  and  you  can  no  more  plead  pre- 
scription against  us  than  against  them." 

"  I  have  admitted  the  plea  of  prescription,  in  the  case  of 
paganism  and  Mahometanism,  on  the  supposition  that  they 
are  really  in  possession, — a  fact,  however,  which  I  let  pass, 
but  do  not  concede.  But  Protestants  cannot  plead  prescrip- 
tion, because  they  are  not  and  never  have  been  in  posses- 
sion, and  because  they  do  not  even  claim  to  be,  since  you, 
in  their  name,  deny  that  the  commission  in  question  has  ever 
issued." 

"  But  conceding  that  there  was  a  presumption  in  favor  of 
the  church  at  the  epoch  of  the  reformation,  and  that  the 
reformers  were  not  at  liberty  to  separate  from  her  without 
cause,  this  cannot  be  said  now.  The  church  is  not  now  in 
possession.  The  reformers  gave  good  and  valid  reasons  for 
separating  from  her  communion,  and  she  has  been  con- 
demned as  a  usurper  by  the  judgment  of  mankind.  The 
question  is  not  now  on  ousting  her  from  a  possession  which 
she  has  held  from  time  immemorial,  but  on  reversing  the 
judgment  rendered  against  her,  and  readmitting  her  to  a 
possession  from  which  she  has  been  ejected  by  due  process 
of  law." 

"  "When  was  the  judgment  you  speak  of  rendered  ?  and 
where  is  the  record  of  the  court  ? " 

"The  fact  is  one  of  public  notoriety,  and  all  the  world 
now  laughs  at  the  ridiculous  pretensions  of  Rome." 

"  Do  you  include  in  all  the  world  the  pagan  and  Mahom- 
etan worlds?" 

"Why  should  I  not?" 

"  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  question  has  really  ever 
come  before  them  in  such  a  shape  that  they  can  be  said  to 
have  pronounced  judgment  upon  it ;  and  as  they  reject 
Protestantism,  whenever  it  pretends  to  be  Christian,  no  less 
than  Catholicity,  they  might  possibly  be  as  unsafe  witnesses 
for  a  Presbyterian  as  for  a  Catholic, — perhaps  even  more 
so." 

"  Let  them  go.  I  mean  by  all  the  world  all  the  Christian 
world,  Christendom  so  called." 

"  You  mean  to  assert,  then,  that  Christendom  has  pro- 
nounced judgment  against  the  Catholic  Church  ?" 

"  Yes,  against  the  Romish  Church." 


THE    TWO    BROTHERS.  55 

"  You  distinguish  without  a  difference.  The  church  in 
communion  with  the  church  of  Home,  acknowledging  its 
pontiff  for  its  supreme  head  on  earth,  is  the  only  church 
which,  by  the  consent  of  mankind,  is  or  ever  has  been  de- 
nominated the  Catholic  Church." 

"  She  should  be  denominated  the  mother  of  harlots." 

"  So  that  Protestant  communions  might  claim  to  be  her 
daughters.  But  no  more  of  this.  Have  Catholics,  who  re- 
main in  her  communion,  pronounced  judgment  against  the 
church  ? " 

"  Perhaps  not." 

"  And  they  are  as  two,  if  not  three,  to  one  of  all  who  bear 
the  Christian  name." 

"  I  am  sorry  to  say  they  are." 

"  And  I  am  not  sorry,  and  would  to  God  there  were  none 
but  Catholics  on  the  earth  ! " 

"  That  is,  you  would,  if  you  could,  exterminate  all  Prot- 
estants." 

"  Yes,  if  making  them  sincere  and  humble  Catholics  were 
exterminating  them.  But  if  Catholics  are  the  great  majority 
of  Christendom,  how  can  you  tell  me  that  Christendom  has 
pronounced  judgment  against  the  church  ?  " 

"  I  do  not  reckon  Papists  amon^  Christians." 

"And  I  regard  what  you  call  Papists  as  the  only  true 
Christians;  and  I  have,  to  say  the  least,  as  much  right  to  my 
reckoning  as  you  have  to  yours.  You  mean,  then,  by  Chris- 
tendom those  who  protest  against  the  church?" 

"  You  may  have  it  so." 

"Then  your  position  is,  the  church  is  condemned  by  all 
by  whom  she  is  condemned  1  This  may  be  granted.  But 
these  are  a  Bmall  minority,  a  mere  handful,  of  those  who 
bear  the  Christian  name.  By  what  right  do  you  pronounce 
their  judgmenl  the  judgment  of  mankind?" 

"Protestanl  Qatione  are  the  more  enlightened  and  ad- 
vanced portion  of  mankind." 

"  Is  that  ; Deeded   fact?" 

"Is it  QOi  \n 

"  Do  < latholics  concede  it?" 

"  Perhaps  cot." 

"They  are  thegreal  majority,  and,  as  they  deny  it,  how 

cm  von  |.ut  it  forth  cerally  conceded  1 

"The  denial  of  Catholics  amounts  to  nothing, — the  fact 
;        I  allej 

"Id  '.  hi  ent?" 


56  THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 

"  In  the  judgment  of  all  who  are  competent  to  judge  io 
the  premises." 

"  Who  says  so  ? " 

"  I  say  so." 

"On  what  authority?" 

"  The  fact  is  evident,  and  cannot  be  questioned." 

"  But  it  is  questioned  and  denied  by  Catholics,  who  are  as 
five  to  one  to  your  Protestants." 

"  They  will  swear  to  any  thing  their  priests  tell  them. 
Their  denial  is  not  to  be  counted.  They  are  not  to  be  per- 
mitted to  testify  in  their  own  cause." 

"  As  much  as  you  in  yours.  Their  denial  is  as  good  as 
your  assertion,  till  you  show  some  reason  why  your  assertion 
is  to  be  preferred." 

"  I  tell  you  Protestant  nations  are  the  most  enlightened 
and  advanced  portion  of  mankind,  as  is  well  known." 

"  Well  known  to  whom  ?     To  themselves  ? " 

"  Yes,  if  you  will." 

"  By  wrhat  right  are  they  both  witnesses  and  judges  in 
their  own  cause  ? " 

"  By  the  right  of  being  the  most  enlightened  and  ad- 
vanced portion  of  mankind." 

""What  is  it  to  be  truly  enlightened  and  advanced?" 

"  Those  nations  are  the  most  enlightened  and  advanced 
that  are  the  most  enlightened  and  advanced  in  what  is  of 
the  greatest  importance  and  utility  to  man." 

"  And  what  is  that  ? " 

"  Religion,  the  '  one  thing  needful.'  " 

"  True  religion,  or  false  ?" 

"  True  religion,  of  course." 

"  The  most  enlightened  and  advanced  nations  are,  then,, 
those  who  are  the  most  enlightened  and  advanced  in  the  re- 
quirements of  true  religion '{ " 

"They  are;  and  therefore  I  claim  Protestant  nations  as 
the  most  enlightened  and  advanced." 

"  And  therefore  beg  the  question.  If  Protestantism  be  the 
true  religion,  you  are  right ;  if  Catholicity  be  the  true  re- 
ligion, you  are  wrong.  Consequently,  you  must  determine 
wnich  is  the  true  religion,  before  you  can  determine  which 
are  the  more  enlightened  and  advanced  nations." 

"But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  Protestant  nations  are  more 
intelligent,  more  industrious,  and  better  instructed  in  the 
science  and  art  of  government." 

••  What  you  say  may  be  questioned  ;  but  even  conceding 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS.  57 

it,  it  amounts  to  nothing.  Because  a  man  is  a  good  cobbler 
it  does  not  follow  that  he  is  a  good  sculptor.  Because  a  na- 
tion is  enlightened  in  mere  earthly  matters,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  it  is  in  religious  matters.  It  would  be  a  solecism 
to  say  the  Athenians  were  a  more  enlightened  and  advanced 
nation  than  the  Jews,  or  that  a  Socrates  is  better  authority 
on  religion  than  David,  Solomon,  or  Isaias." 

"  But  I  have  always  considered  it  undeniable  that  Protes- 
tant nations  are  in  advance  of  all  the  others." 

"  If  to  advance  consists  in  shaking  off  Christian  civiliza- 
tion and  in  returning  to  that  which  is  superseded,  you  may 
have  been  right ;  otherwise,  the  probability  is,  that  you  have 
been  altogether  wrong.  You  must  prove  Protestantism  to 
be  true  religion,  before  you  can  claim  Protestant  nations  as 
the  more  enlightened  and  advanced  nations ;  and  till  you 
can  so  claim  them,  you  cannot  claim  their  judgment  as  the 
judgment  of  mankind,  even  if  you  could  then  ;  and  till  you 
can  claim  their  judgment  as  the  judgment  of  mankind,  you 
cannot  say  the  judgment  of  mankind  has  condemned  the 
church.  This  you  have  not  yet  done.  Consequently,  you 
cannot  6ay  the  church  has  been  ejected  from  her  pos- 
session by  the  judgment  of  mankind.  She  is,  as  it  appears, 
from  the  fact  that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  those  who 
bear  the  Christian  name  continue,  as  they  have  always  con- 
tinued, to  adhere  to  her,  still  in  possession.  She  has  lost 
nothing,  and  you  have  gained  nothing,  by  the  lapse  of  three 
hundred  years.  The  question  stands  to-day  as  it  did  in  1517, 
and  she  may  plead  the  olim possideo,  as  she  could  then,  and 
with  even  additional  force  ;  and  you  must  set  forth  in  your 
declaration  good  and  valid  reasons  for  ejecting  her,  before 
you  can  compel  her  to  plead  any  other  title  than  that  of 
cription. 

"  Bui  you  forget  that  the  reformers  did  set  forth  such 
reasons." 

"I  cannot  have  forgotten  what  I  never  knew.  Bat  what- 
ever reasons  the j  set  forth,  the  presumption  is  that  they  were 
insufficient:  foi  they  nave  been  so  regarded  byOhristendom 
generally,  since  the  church  continues  m  possession,  and  the 

greal  majority  Of  all  who  are   called    Christians   still    adhere 

to  her  communion." 

"  But  they  were  in  reality  sufficient,  and  ought  to  have 
been  so  regarded." 

"That,  ls  a  point  to  be  proved.  What  were  those  Tea- 
s', n-  I " 


58  THE   'IW*>    BROTHERS. 

"  The  first  in  order,  if  not  in  time,  was,  that  our  Lord 
founded  no  authoritative  church  such  as  the  Romish  claims 
to  be." 

"  We  have  seen  she  was  in  possession,  and  the  presump- 
tion was  in  her  favor.  What  you  state  was  an  allegation 
which  needed  to  be  proved." 

"  The  reformers  proved  it." 

"  By  what  evidence  ? " 

"  By  the  word  of  God." 

"  Had  they  the  word  of  God  ? 

"  They  had." 

"  Did  the  church  concede  that  they  had  it?  " 

"  They  had  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  she  admitted  that 
they  were  the  word  of  God." 

"  That  the  mere  letter  was  the  word  of  God,  or  the  sense 
in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  dictated  them  ?  " 

"The  sense,  of  course;  for  words  are  nothing  without 
their  sense." 

"  Did  she  admit  that  the  reformers,  in  having  the  letter 
of  Scripture,  had  its  sense,  which  is  the  word  of  God  ? " 

"  She  did  not." 

"Was,  according  to  her,  the  Holy  Scripture  the  word  of 
God.  if  understood  in  any  sense  different  from  hers  % " 

"  No  ;  she  claimed  the  right  to  declare  its  sense." 

"  Did  the  reformers  adduce  the  words  of  Scripture,  in 
support  of  their  allegation  that  our  Lord  had  founded  no 
such  church  as  she  pretended  to  be,  in  the  sense  she  gave 
them  ? " 

"  They  did  not ;  for  she  explained  them  in  her  own  fa- 
vor." 

"  Then  she  did  not  admit  that  what  they  adduced  in  sup- 
port of  their  allegation  was  the  word  of  God.  Then,  as  the 
burden  of  proof  was  on  them,  they  were  bound  to  prove  that 
it  was  his  word." 

"  They  quoted  the  Scriptures,  and  they  were  the  word  of 
God." 

"  In  the  sense  of  the  church,  not  otherwise.  The  reform- 
ers pleaded  the  word  of  God  in  support  of  their  allegation. 
The  church  replied  by  denying  that  what  they  set  forth  as 
the  word  of  God  was  his  word.  Her  reply  was  sufficient, 
unless  they  proved  that  it  was  his  word." 

"  But  their  plea  was  evident  on  its  face,  for  they  alleged 
the  very  won!-  of  Scripture." 

••  That  they  alleged  the  very  words  of  Scripture  may  be 


THE   TWO    BROTIIEKS.  59 

denied,  for  in  point  of  fact  there  are  no  words  of  Scripture 
which  say  that  our  Lord  did  not  found  such  a  church  as  the 
Catholic  Church  claimed  and  claims  to  be  ;  but  let  that  pass 
for  the  present.  They  pleaded  the  word  of  God,  and  the 
word  of  God  is  not  the  words,  but  the  sense,  of  Scripture. 
To  adduce  the  words,  therefore,  availed  them  nothing,  unless 
they  proved  that  the  sense  of  the  words,  as  intended  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  was  what  they  pretended ;  for  till  then  they 
could  not  assert  that  they  had  adduced  the  word  of  God." 

"  But  the  matter  was  so  plain,  that  there  could  be  no  ques- 
tion as  to  the  genuine  sense  of  the  words  adduced." 

"But  there  was  a  question  as  to  the  sense,  by  your  own 
admission.  The  church  attached  to  them  one  sense,  and  the 
reformers  another." 

"  But  the  words  themselves  necessarily  mean  what  the  re- 
formers asserted." 

"  We  cannot  go  into  that  question  at  present.  The  right 
to  declare  the  word  of  God  is  included  in  the  possession  of 
the  church,  and  the  fact  that  she  denied  the  reformers' 
sense  is  prima  facie  evidence  in  her  favor  and  against 
them." 

"  I  do  not  admit  that." 

"  You  have  admitted  it ;  for  you  have  conceded  that  pre- 
scription was  in  favor  of  the  church,  and  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  title.  You  must,  therefore,  admit  the  word  of 
God  as  the  church  declares  it,  till  you  can  assign  a  good  and 
valid  reason  for  not  doing  so." 

"  The  fact  that  the  express  words  of  Scripture  are  against 
her  is  such  a  reason." 

••  The  express  words  of  Scripture  you  cannot  allege;  be- 
canse,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  no  such  words  are  to  be  found  ; 
and  because,  if  there  were  such  words,  they  still  could  not 
be  adduced  against  the  church,  for  the  Scriptures  are  in  her 
possession,  and  denied  to  have  authority  save  as  she  under- 
stands them." 

"That  would  be  to  deny  that  the  Scriptures  are  legiti- 
mate evidence  in  support  of  an  allegation  against  the 
church." 

"That  is  not  my  fault      The  reformers  could  not,  of 

course,  legitimately  quote  the  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  <  »od 

inst  the  church,  Bave  in  the  sense  she  authorized,  unless 

they  succeeded  in  removing  the  presumption  she  derived 

from  prescription,  and  in  getting  themselves  legal  possession 

of    the,,!." 


GO  THE    TWO    BROTHERS. 

"  I  do  not  admit  that.  The  Scriptures  were  the  law,  to 
which  the  church  and  all  were  accountable." 

u  As  declared  by  the  church,  transeat;  but  that  they  were 
the  law  in  any  other  sense  the  reformers  were  bound  to 
prove." 

"  Bat  the  reformers  had  the  word  of  God  as  well  as  the 
church,  and  therefore  were  not  bound,  even  presumptively,, 
by  the  sense  she  declared." 

"  Had  they  legal  possession  of  the  word  of  God  ? " 

"  I  care  nothing  about  that.  They  had  the  Scriptures,, 
and  that  was  enough ;  for  they  had  in  them  the  rule  of  faith, 
both  for  them  and  for  the  church." 

"  But  you  must  care  for  that ;  for  it  is  conceded  that  the 
church  was  in  possession,  and,  being  in  possession,  she  had 
the  presumptive  right  to  declare  the  law ;  and  they  were 
bound  to  take  it  from  her,  unless  they  could  prove  that  they 
had  legal  possession  of  the  word." 

"  They  received  the  Scriptures  from  God  himself." 

"  They  were,  then,  the  legal  depositaries  of  the  word  ? " 

"  Yes,  as  much  as  the  church." 

"  Had  they  the  right  to  declare  its  sense  ?  " 

"Why  not?" 

"  If  you  say  that,  you  concede  the  point  you  dispute. 
You  allege  against  the  church,  that  our  Lord  founded  no 
such  church.  The  essential  character  of  the  church,  so  far 
as  concerns  the  present  controversy,  is,  that  she  has  the  word 
of  God,  and  is  its  legal  keeper  and  expounder.  If,  then, 
you  say  the  reformers  had  legal  possession  of  the  word,  and 
were  authorized  to  keep  and  expound  it,  you  make  them 
essentially  such  a  church  as  you  assert  our  Lord  did  not 
found.  You  contest  the  claims  of  the  church  on  the  ground 
that  our  Lord  founded  no  church  with  the  authority  she  exer- 
cises ;  you  must,  then,  unless  you  would  concede  what  you 
deny,  disclaim  that  authority  on  the  part  of  the  reformers." 

"  I  do  disclaim  it  on  their  part." 

"  Then  you  grant,  in  the  outset,  that  they  had  no  legal 
possession  of  the  word,  and  were  not  its  authorized  keeper 
and  expounder ;  therefore,  that  they  had  no  word  of  God 
which  they  had  authority  to  quote  against  the  church.  What 
they  had  not  they  could  not  adduce.  Consequently,  they 
did  not,  for  they  could  not,  adduce  the  word  of  God  in  sup- 
port of  their  allegation." 

"  But  they  had  the  Scriptures,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and 
could  read  and  understand  them  for  themselves." 


THE   TWO    BROTHER?.  01 

"They  had  the  Scriptures  as. a  private  citizen  has  the 
statute-book,  it  may  be  ;  but  as  they  were  not  the  authorized 
keeper  and  expounder  of  the  word  of  God,  their  under- 
standing of  it  was  without  authority,  and  not  to  be  enter- 
tained. 

"  They  had  the  right  from  God  himself  to  read  and  un- 
derstand the  word  for  themselves." 

''Then  they  were  authorized  to  keep  and  expound  it,  at 
least  for  themselves." 

"  They  were." 

"  But  I  understand  you  to  deny  that  any  body  was  au- 
thorized to  keep  and  expound  the  word." 

"  I  do  not  say  so.  Almighty  God,  in  revealing  his  word, 
has  authorized  every  one  to  keep,  read,  and  expound  its 
sense." 

"  Then,  so  far  from  its  being  true,  as  you  have  alleged, 
that  our  Lord  has  founded  no  church  with  the  authority  the 
Catholic  Church  claims,  he  has  constituted  each  individual  a 
church  with  the  same  authority.  Decidedly,  brother,  you 
must  give  up  this,  or  withdraw  your  allegation.  If  you  ad- 
mit that  our  Lord  has  anywhere  authorized  any  body,  indi- 
vidual or  collective,  to  keep  and  expound  the  word  of  God, 
you  admit  that  lie  did  found,  essentially,  such  a  church  as 
your  allegation  denies.  You  cannot  deny  such  authority  to 
the  church  on  the  ground  that  no  such  authority  was  ever 
given,  and  then  claim  it  for  each  and  every  individual." 

"  Be  that  as  it  may,  1  do  claim  it  for  each  and  every  indi- 
vidual." 

"  That  is  a  bold  stand  for  a  Presbyterian,  but  necessity 
sometimes  compels  us  to  be  bold.     But  did  the  church  admit 
I" 

"  No,  she  denied  it." 

"  Then  the  reformers  were  bound  to  prove  it." 

"They  did  prove  it." 

"  By  what  authority?" 

•■Tli.'  word  of  GocL" 

"  By  what  the  church  admitted  to  be  the  word  of  God?v 

"  No  matter  what  she   admitted.      They  proved  it  by  the 
word  it  »elf." 
"  W"ho    ■■     of" 
"They  said  »." 
"On  what  authority  I  " 
»  On  the  authority  of  God'a  word." 

"Oil  what  authority  did    they  say  that  that  was   the  word 

of  God  which  authorized  them  to  say  so  j  " 


,,_>  THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 

"The  word  itself." 

"But  by  what  authority  did  they  prove  the  word  itself?" 

"  The  word  of  God  is  the  word  of  God,  and  is  in  all  cases 
■supreme.     "Would  you  deny  the  word  of  God  ? " 

"  But  as  the  church  denied  what  they  adduced  as  the  word 
of  God  to  be  his  word,  they  were  then  bound  to  prove  that 
it  was  his  word." 

11  What  did  Almighty  God  give  us  his  word  for,  if  it  was 
not  that  we  should  read  and  understand  it  for  ourselves  ? " 

"  Your  first  business  is  to  prove  that  he  has  given  you  his 
word.  The  church  asserts  that  he  has  given  it  to  her,  and 
that  she  permits  the  faithful  to  read  the  Scriptures  for  their 
edification,  but  always  with  submission  to  her  authority,  and 
the  reservation  that  no  doctrine  is  to  be  deduced  from  them 
which  she  does  not  authorize." 

"  There  she  is  wrong." 

"  That  is  for  you  to  prove." 

"  God  proposed  to  teach  mankind  by  writings,  not  by  a 
body  of  men." 

"  That,  also,  is  for  you  to  prove." 

"  It  is  evident  from  the  word  itself." 

"  You  must  prove  that  yew  have  the  word,  before  you  can 
introduce  it  as  evidence." 

"  No  one  can  read  the  New  Testament  and  believe  other- 
wise." 

"  Not  true  in  fact ;  for  the  great  mass  of  all  who  do  read 
the  New  Testament  actually  believe  otherwise.  But  you 
must  get  legal  possession  of  the  New  Testament,  and  estab- 
lish your  right  to  interpret  it,  before  you  can  quote  it  in  a 
•sense  the  church  denies.  Till  then,  the  denial  of  your  as- 
sertion by  the  church  is  prima  facie  evidence  against  you." 

"  I  do  not  care  for  the  church.     I  deny  her  authority." 

"  I  know  that ;  but  her  authority  is  to  be  presumed,  till 
reasons  are  set  forth  for  denying  it.  You  are  not  at  liberty 
to  deny  it  without  a  reason." 

"  I  have  given  a  reason." 

"What  is  it?" 

"  Why,  I  tell  you  she  is  condemned  by  the  word  of  God." 

"  You  tell  me  so,  but  that  is  not  enough.  You  must  prove 
that  it  is  so." 

"  You  do  not  suffer  me  to  do  so.  You  will  not  suffer  me 
to  quote  the  Bible  against  her." 

"  No  such  thing.  W/ien  you  have  proved  that  the  Bible, 
in  the  sense  you  adduce  it,  is  the  word  of  God,  you  may 
quote  it  to  your  heart's  content" 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  6% 

"  "Why,  I  have  told  you  again  and  again  that  the  church 
herself  admits  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  there- 
fore it  is  not  necessary,  in  arguing  against  her,  to  prove  that 
what  I  adduce  from  it  is  the  word  of  God." 

"  The  Bible  in  the  sense  she  authorizes,  she  admits  to  be 
the  word  of  God,  I  grant ;  in  any  other  sense,  she  denies  it 
to  be  the  word  of  God.  Consequently,  since  you  would 
adduce  it  in  a  sense  she  does  not  authorize,  if  you  adduce  it 
at  all,  she  denies  what  you  would  adduce  is  the  word  of  God. 
You  must,  then,  prove  that  it  is,  before  you  can  legally  ad- 
duc-it." 

"  But  you  will  not  let  me  prove  it.", 

"  I  do  not  hinder  you." 

"  I  offer  to  prove  it  by  the  word  itself." 

"  That  is  not  logical ;  for  it  would  be  to  assume  the  word 
to  prove  the  word." 

"Not  so.  Here  are  the  Scriptures,  admitted  by  the 
church,  when  taken  in  their  genuine  sense,  to  be  the  word 
of  God.  I  simply  propose  from  them  and  by  them  to  show 
what  is  their  genuine  sense  ;  and  if  I  do  so,  I  prove  by  an 
authority  which  she  herself  concedes  all  that  I  am  required 
to  prove." 

"  You  cannot  do  that,  because  in  doing  it  you  assume  that 
the  church  is  not  the  authorized  interpreter  of  the  word, 
which  is  the  point  you  must  prove;  and  that  you  are  the 
authorized  interpreter,  which  is  also  a  point  you  must  prove. 
The  church  simply  admits  that  the  Scriptures,  taken  in  the 
sense  she  authorizes,  are  the  word  of  God.  This  is  the  full 
extent  of  her  admission.  But  taken  in  another  sense,  she 
denies  them  to  be  the  word  of  God  ;  for  the  word  of  God, 
we  have  agreed,  is  not  the  words,  but  the  sense,  of  the 
Scriptures.  Consequently,  before  you  can  allege  them  in  a 
sense  contrary  to  hers,  nay,  before  you  can  go  into  any  in- 
quiry ae  to  their  sense,  you  must,  on  the  one  hand,  dispossess 
Ber  of  her  prescriptive  right  to  declare  (heir  sense;,  and  es- 
tablish your  own  authority  as  their  interpreter.  Till  you 
have  done  one  or  the  other,  the  sense  of  Scripture  is  not 

BH  open  question,  and  you  Cannot  open  it  without  assuming 
the  point   in  ili   pute." 

>-  That  denies  absolutely  my  right  to  quote  the  Scriptures 

again -t  the  church." 

"Not    absolutely.        Von    may    quote    them    in    her    seiiso 

againsi  ber,  if  yon  can  ;  and  in  your  own  sense,  when  you 

have  proved  it  to  he  the  won!  01   God." 


fi4  THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 

"But  the  first  would  be  of  no  avail, because  she  has  taken 
care  to  explain  the  Scriptures  in  her  own  favor ;  and  I 
cannot  prove  them  to  be  the  word  of  God  in  any  other 
sense,  unless  I  am  at  liberty  to  explain  them  by  themselves." 

"  That  is,  you  cannot  prove  your  point,  unless  you  are  at 
liberty  to  prove  the  same  by  the  same  !  Prove  that  you  are 
authorized  to  declare  the  sense  of  Scripture,  and  then  you 
will  have  no  difficulty." 

"  But  I  cannot  prove  that  I  am,  save  from  the  word  it- 
self." 

"  That  is  to  say,  unless  you  are  at  liberty  to  assume  and 
exercise  the  authority  to  declare  the  sense  of  Scripture,  as 
the  condition  of  provin'g  that  you  have  such  authority  !  That 
will  not  do,  brother.  It  would  be  proving  idem  per  idem, 
the  same  by  the  same,  which  is  bad  logic. 

"  How,  then,  am  1  to  proceed  ? " 

"  That  is  your  affair,  not  mine." 

"  The  church  spreads  her  claim  over  every  thing,  and 
leaves  me,  according  to  your  principles  of  logic,  no  possible 
means  of  adopting  any  line  of  argument  against  her,  which 
does  not,  in  some  sense,  assume  the  point  to  be  proved.  So 
subtle  and  crafty  in  her  tyranny,  that  it  leaves  absolutely 
nothing  to  those  who  would  resist  it.  This  to  me  is  only 
another  evidence  of  her  wicked  origin  and  pernicious  in- 
fluence." 

"  So  you  are  of  opinion,  that,  if  Almighty  God  should  es- 
tablish a  church,  he  would  take  good  care  to  leave  it  open 
to  attack,  to  give  its  enemies  a  fair  and  solid  ground  on 
which  to  carry  on  their  operations  against  it !    I  am  of  a  dif- 
ferent opinion,  and  predisposed  to  believe  the  Almighty  to 
be  more  than  a  match  for  the  devil,  and  that,  if  he  should 
establish  a  church,  he  would  so  constitute  it  that  no  attack 
could  be  made  upon  it  which  should  not  recoil  upon  those 
who  made   it, — no  argument   be  framed  against  it  which 
should  not  serve  to  demonstrate  the  folly  and  absurdity  of 
its  f  ramers.      It  is  unquestionably  a  very  difficult  matter  to 
make  an  action  lie  against  the  church,  or  to  find  a  court 
in  which  an  action  can  be  legally  commenced  against  her; 
but  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  this  is  her  fault.     The  church  is 
in  possession  of  universal  and  supreme  authority  under  God, 
has  &  prescriptive  right  to  that  authority,  and  must  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  a  valid  right  to  it  till  the  contrary  is  shown. 
You  cannot  assume  the  contrary,  but  are  bound  to  prove 
it.     Now  you  must  prove  it  without  authority,  or  with 

Vol.  VI— 20 


THE    TWO    BKOTHEKS.  65 

authority.  "Without  authority  you  cannot  prove  it;  for 
proofs  which  are  sustained  by  no  authority  prove  noth- 
ing. You  must,  then,  prove  it  with  authority,  or  not 
prove  it  at  all.  That  it  is  difficult  to  find  any  authority 
whose  assertion  does  not  assume  the  nullity  of  the  supreme 
authority  which  is  to  be  presumed,  is  undoubtedly  true. 
You  wish  to  arraign  the  actual  possessor  of  the  supreme 
authority,  but  you  cannot  do  so  unless  you  have  some 
court  of  competent  jurisdiction.  But  any  court  which 
Bhould  claim  authority  to  issue  a  precept  against  the  posses- 
sor of  supreme  authority,  and  summon  him  to  answer  at  its 
bar,  would  assume  authority  over  him,  and  by  so  doing 
prejudge  the  case.  This  is  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  can- 
not be  avoided  ;  but  whose  is  the  fault  ?  The  reformers,  if 
they  had  been  lawyers,  would  have  seen  that  what  they  at- 
tempted was  against  law,  and  a  prima  facie  crime  on  their 
part,  for  which  they  were  liable  to  suffer  the  full  vengeance 
of  the  law.  If  they  had  been  even  tolerable  logicians,  they 
would  have  seen  that  they  could  urge  no  argument  which 
did  not  assume  what  was  in  question.  But  surely  the  church 
is  not  to  be  censured,  because  they  were  miserable  pettifog- 
gers and  shallow  sophists." 

"  But  there  is  a  court  competent  to  institute  proceedings 
against  the  church." 

"  What  court  ? " 

"  The  court  of  conscience." 

"  You  must  prove  that  conscience  is  supreme,  before  you 
can  say  that ;  for  the  church,  as  the  vicegerent  of  the  Al- 
mighty, claims  and  possesses  jurisdiction  over  conscience,  and 
ia  supreme  judge  in  foro  conscientice.  This  is  an  integral 
part  of  her  y  ion  to  which  she  has  a  prescriptive  right. 

You  must  dispossess  her,  before  you  can  compel  her  to  plead 
at  the  bar  of  conscience." 

But  she  is  at   least  bound  to  answer  at  the  bar  of  the 
Bible,  interpreted  by  private  reason." 

'•  Not  till  yon  di  pot  ess  her,  or  place  the  Bible  interpret- 
ed by  private  rea  on  in  poi  a  ion;  for  she  possesses  juris- 
diction over  them." 

u  At  the  bar  of  reason,  then." 

"Reason  has  and  can  have  no  jurisdiction  in  the  premises; 
for  the  quesl ion  tarns  on  a  Bupernatnra]  fact,  lies  within  the 
supernatural  order,  and  therefore  out  of  the  province  of  rea- 


son." 


"The  general  .-ens*;  of   mankind." 


fifi 


TIIE    TWO    BKOTIIKKS. 


"  That  is  against  you,  and  in  favor  of  the  church,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  and  is  conceded  in  the  fact  that  tli3 
church  is  allowed  to  plead  prescription." 

"  Then  to  the  written  word,  interpreted  and  its  sense  de- 
clared by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

"  Establish  the  fact  of  such  a  court,  and  she  will  not  re- 
fuse to  appear  and  answer.  But  she  claims  to  be  that  court 
herself,  and  is  in  possession  as  that  court ;  you  must  dispos- 
sess her  by  direct  impeachment  of  her  claims,  or  by  estab- 
lishing, before  a  competent  tribunal,  the  rights  of  an  adverse 
claimant,  before  you  can  allege  such  a  court." 

"The  reformers  were  aided  by  the  private  illumination  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  what  they  did,  they  did  in  obedience 
to  his  commands." 

"  That  was  for  them  to  prove." 
"  They  did  prove  it." 
«  How  ? " 

"  From  the  written  word." 

"  But  they  could  prove  nothing  from  the  written  word, 
for  they  had  no  legal  possession  of  it." 

"  They  had  legal  possession  of  it.  The  Holy  Ghost  gave 
them  legal  possession  of  it." 

"  What  and  where  was  the  evidence  of  that  fact,  if  fact 
it  was?" 

"  In  the  Scriptures." 

"  That  is,  they  proved  by  the  Holy  Spirit  that  they  had 
legal  possession  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  by  the  Holy 
Scriptures  that  they  had  the  Holy  Ghost !  But  this  was  to 
reason  in  a  vicious  circle" 

"  The  reformers  set  forth  other  and  conclusive  reasons  for 
rejecting  the  church,  which  I  will  reproduce  on  another 
day  ;  but  you  must  excuse  me  now,  for  I  have  some  paroch- 
ial duties  to  which  I  must  attend." 

"  So  you  give  up  the  first  reason,  namely,  our  Lord  found- 
ed no  such  church  as  the  Catholic  ? " 

"  Not  by  any  means.  I  may  have  erred  in  bringing  that 
forward  before  the  others.  I  ought  not  to  have  departed 
from  the  example  of  the  reformers.  They  did  not  allege 
that  reason  first,  and  I  see  now  that  they  were  wise  in  not 
doing  so.  They  first  proved  that  the  church  had  forfeited 
her  rights,  by  having  abused  her  trusts.  Having  thus  eject- 
ed her,  they  took  possession  of  the  word,  and  easily  and 
clearly  demonstrated  that  she  had  been  null  from  the  be- 
ginning, by  showing  that  our  Lord  never  contemplated 
such  a  church." 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS.  G7 

"  That  is,  they  dispossessed  themselves  by  acquiring  pos- 
session.    Very  good  Protestant  law  and  logic. " 

"  You  may  spare  your  sneer,  for  perhaps  it  will  soon  be  re- 
torted with  seven-fold  vengeance." 

"  O,  not  so  bad  as  that,  t  hope." 

"We  shall' see.     I  will,  God  willing,  prove  that  the  re- 
formers were  rigid  reasoners,  and  sound  lawyers." 

"  An  Herculean  task.  Clearing  the  Augean  stables  was 
easy  compared  with  it." 

"  The  reformers  were  great  and  glorious  men,  rare  men, 
the  like  of  whom  will  not  soon  be  seen  again." 

"  Some  consolation  in  that." 

"  To  call  such  men  miserable  pettifoggers  and  shallow 
sophists  is " 

"  To  use  soft  words,  which  turn  away  wrath." 

"  To  outrage  common  sense  and  common  decency." 

"  Why,  would  you  censure  me  for  not  calling  them  by 
harder  names  ?  I  might  have  easily  done  so,  but  I  wished 
to  spare  your  prejudices  as  much  as  possible." 

"I  tell  you,  John,  that,  in  becoming  a  miserable  idolatrous 
Papist,  and  drunk  with  the  cup  of  that  sorceress  of  Baby- 
lon, the  mother  of  every  abomination,  you  seem  to  have  lost 
ill  sense  of  dignity,  all  self-respect,  and  all  regard  for  the 
proprieties  of  civilized  life." 

"  Because  I  do  not  rave  and  rant,  every  time  I  have  occa- 
sion to  allude  to  the  chiefs  of  the  Protestant  rebellion?  " 

"No;  you  know  that  is  not  what  I  mean.  You  degrade 
yourself  in  speaking  so  contemptously  of  the  glorious  re- 
forms 

•  .\ii',  what  does  my  most  excellent,  amiable,  polite,  and 
sweet-spokeo  brother  do,  when  he  calls  God's  Holy  Church 
the  Borcereaa  of  Babylon,  &o.,  and  brands  the  members  of 
her  holy  communion  with  the  name  of  idolaters?" 

CHAPTER  VII. 

( *  .i.v.-i  few  days  elapsed  before  John,  finding  his  brother 
apparently  at  leisure,  pressed  him  to  redeem  his  promise. 

••  You  are  prepared,  brother,  by  this  time,  I  presume,  to 
undertake  your  vindication  of  the  reformers,  and  to  prove 
that  they  were  Bound  lawyers  and  rigid  reasoners." 

"Tlio  church  has  bo  spread  out  her  claims  over  every 
thing,  tli.it  it,  is  bard  toconstrud  an  argument  against  her, 
which  does  not  apparently  take  for  granted  sumo  point 


<>s 


TI1E   TWO    BROTHERS. 


which  she  contends  is  the  point  to  be  proved;  but  the  devil, 
though  cunning,  can  be  outwitted." 

"What!  by  heretics?" 

"  Protestants  are  not  heretics." 

"  The  church  is  in  possession  ;  and  since  Protestants  break 
away  from  her  and  contend  for  what  she  declares  to  be  con- 
trary to  the  faith,  they  are  at  least  presumptively  heretics, 
and  are  to  be  treated  as  such,  unless  they  prove  the  con- 
trary." 

"  The  church  is  in  possession  de  facto,  not  de  jure.  She 
is  a  usurper." 

"Possession  de  facto,  we  have  agreed,  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  title.  The  reformers  were,  therefore,  as  we  have 
seen,  bound  either  to  admit  it,  or  show  good  and  valid  rea- 
sons for  questioning  it." 

"  True  ;  but  they  showed  such  reasons." 

"  So  you  have  said,  but  you  have  not  told  me  the  reasons 
themselves." 

"  I  gave  you  as  one  of  those  reasons,  the  fact  that  our 
Lord  founded  no  such  church  as  the  Romish." 

"  But  that  was  a  reason  you  could  not  assign,  because  the 
simple  fact  of  the  existence  of  the  church  in  possession  was 
vrima  facie  evidence  to  the  contrary." 

"  I  offered  to  prove  my  position  from  the  word  of  God." 

"  But  could  not,  because  the  church  was  in  possession  as 
the  keeper  and  interpreter  of  the  word,  and  you  could  not 
adduce  it  in  a  sense  contrary  to  hers  without  begging  the 
question." 

"  I  have  the  word  as  well  as  she,  and  it  interprets  itself." 

"  That  you  have  the  word,  or  that  it  interprets  itself,  you 
were  not  able  to  prove.  Moreover,  the  argument  may  be 
retorted.  The  church  has  the  word  as  well  as  you,  and  the 
word  interprets  itself.  She  alleges  that  the  word  is  against 
you,  and  her  allegation,  at  the  very  lowest,  is  as  good  against 
your  position  as  yours  is  against  hers." 

"I  deny  her  infallibility." 

"  Do  you  claim  infallibility  for  yourself  ? " 

"  I  claim  infallibility  for  the  word  of  God." 

"  That  is  what  logicians  call  ignorantia  elenchi.  But  do 
you  claim  infallibility  for  your  own  private  understanding 
of  the  word  ? " 

"No." 

"  Then  you  are  fallible,  and  may  fall  into  error  ? " 

"  I  do  not  deny  it." 


T1IE   TWO   BROTHERS.  69 

"The  church,  at  the  very  worst,  is  only  fallible,  and 
therefore,  at  the  very  worst,  is  as  good  as  you  at  the  very 
best,  for  at  the  very  best  you  are  not  infallible.  Consequent- 
ly, your  allegations  of  what  is  the  word  of  God  can  never  be 
a  sufficient  motive  for  setting  aside  hers.  Nothing,  then, 
which  you  can  adduce  from  the  Scriptures,  even  conceding 
you  all  the  right  to  appeal  to  them  you  claim,  can  be  suffi- 
cient to  invalidate  her  title.  As  she,  at  worst,  stands  on  as 
high  ground  as  you  can  even  at  best,  her  simple  declaration 
that  the  word  of  God  is  in  her  favor  is  as  good  as  any  dec- 
larations you  can  make  to  the  contrary.  The  proof,  then, 
which  you  offered  to  introduce,  would  have  availed  you  noth- 
ing, even  if  you  had  been  permitted  to  introduce  it." 

•■  I  do  not  admit  that.  I  offered  to  prove,  and  I  am  able 
to  prove,  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  our  Lord  founded 
no  such  church  as  the  Romish." 

"  It  is  certain  that  you  can  introduce  no  passage  of  Script- 
ure which  expressly,  in  so  many  words,  declares  that  our 
Lord  founded  no  such  church.  If,  then,  you  can  prove  it 
from  the  Scriptures  at  all,  you  can  prove  it  only  by  means 
of  the  interpretations  you  put  upon  the  sacred  text.  But, 
at  any  rate,  and  on  any  conceivable  hypothesis,  the  church 
has  as  much  right  to  interpret  the  sacred  text  as  you  have, 
and  her  interpretations  have,  to  say  the  least,  as  high  au- 
thority as,  granting  you  all  you  ask,  yours  can  have.  But 
she  interprets  the  word  in  her  favor,  and,  according  to  her 
interpretations  of  the  word,  it  is  clear  and  undeniable  that 
it  is  in  her  favor,  and  that  our  Lord  did  found  such  a  church 
as  she  claims  to  be.  Since,  then,  your  interpretations  can 
never  be  a  sufficient  motive  for  setting  aside  hers,  for  they 
at  b  i  be  no  better  than  hers  at  worst,  it,  follows  ueces- 

.-.n-ily  that  you  can  never,  under  any  hypothesis,  prove  from 
the  Scriptures  againei  her,  that  our  Lord  did  not  found  such 
achurcn  as  she  assumes  to  be.  All  this  I  could  say,  even 
waiving  the  argument  from  prescription.  Bat  I  do  not 
wai  jrument     STon  have  conceded  that  the  church 

was  in  po  n.     She  is,  then,  presumptively  uli.it  she 

1ms  to  be.  Then  her  interpretations  are  presumptively 
the  true  interpretations,  and  yours  against  her  presumptively 
false.  For  yon  to  say,  then,  thai  no  such  church  was  ever 
instituted,  is  a  plain  begging  of  the  question,  and  bo  is  every 

argumenl    you  can   COnstrUCi    against  her,  drawn    from   the 

1  Inly    Srri|)tUIV-." 

"But  I  may  disprove  the  claims  of  the  Romish  Church  by 


70  TIIE   TWO   BROTHERS. 

proving  positively  that  some  other  church  is  the  one  actually 
founded  by  our  Lord." 

"  Unquestionably ;  but  you  cannot  plead  at  one  and  the 
fame  time  an  adverse  title,  and  that  no  such  title  was  ever 
issued.  If  you  plead  that  there  was  no  such  church  ever  in- 
stituted, you  are  debarred  from  pleading  an  adverse  title  ; 
for  you  plead  that  the  church  has  no  title,  because  none  was 
ever  issued.  If  none  was  ever  issued,  there  can  be  none  in 
an  a i verse  claimant.  On  the  other  hand,  if  you  plead  an 
adverse  title,  you  concede,  what  you  have  denied,  that  our 
Lord  did  institute  such  a  church  as  the  Catholic  Church 
claims  to  be  ;  that  the  title  she  possesses  has  been  issued  and 
vests  somewhere.  This  changes  the  whole  question.  There 
is  no  longer  any  controversy  between  us  as  to  the  fact  wheth- 
er our  Lord  did  or  did  not  found  a  church  in  the  sense  al- 
leged, but  simply  a  question  whether  it  be  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  or  some  other." 

"  Grant  that  our  Lord  did  found  such  a  church  as  is  pre- 
tended,— and  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  as  well 
as  you, — still  I  deny  that  it  is  the  Romish  Church." 

"  You  join  a  new  issue,  then,  and  plead  now,  not  no  title, 
but  an  adverse  title  ?  " 

"  Be  it  so,  for  the  present." 

"And  what  is  the  adverse  claimant  you  set  up  against 
Rome  ? " 

"  The  church  of  which,  by  God's  grace,  I  am  an  unworthy 
minister." 

"  That  is  to  say,  the  Presbyterian  ?  " 

"  Yes.  The  Presbyterian  Church  is  the  visible  Catholic 
Church,  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  sal- 
vation." 

"  So  says  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  But 
which  Presbyterian  church  do  you  mean  ? " 

"  I  do  not  understand  you." 

"There  are,  vou  know,  brother,  quite  a  number  of  Pres- 
byterian churches  ,  for  instance,  in  Scotland,  the  Kirk  by 
law  established,  the  Free  Kirk,  and  the  Seceders ;  in  this 
country,  the  Old  School,  the  New  School,  and  the  Cumber- 
land Presbyterians ;  in  England,  the  Presbyterian  Dissent- 
ers, for  the  most  part  Unitarian ;  and  on  the  Continent,  the 
Dutch  Reformed,  the  Reformed  German,  the  Genevan,  and 
the  French  Huguenots,  all  virtually  Presbyterian  churches, 
and  very  generally  fallen  into  Socinianism,  rationalism, 
deism,  or  transcendentalism.  Which  of  these,  not  to  men- 
tion several  others,  is  the  one  you  mean  ? " 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 


71 


"  It  is  not  necessary  to  particularize  ;  I  mean  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  general." 

"  Do  you  include  even  those  who  have  become  Socinian, 
rationalistic,  deistical,  transcendental?" 

"  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  in  many  of  the  old  Presbyte- 
rian chu relies  grievous,  and,  as  I  hold,  damnable,  errors  have 
crept  in." 

••  But  are  those  which  have  lapsed  into  these  damnable  er- 
rors still  integral  portions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  Do 
you  claim  the  English  Presbyterians,  the  Genevan,  and 
French?" 

"  The  church  is  never  free  from  error,  taken  as  a  whole, 
but  there  are  always  in  the  church  a  remnant  who  are  faith- 
ful, and  somewhere  in  it  there  is  always  the  pure  preaching 
of  the  word,  as  well  as  the  maintenance  of  the  true  ordi- 
nances of  God's  house." 

"  You  forget  that  you  have  just  conceded  that  our  Lord 
did  found  such  a  church  as  the  Roman  Catholic  claims  to 
be  ;  but  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  claims  to  have  author- 
ity from  God  to  teach,  and  to  teach  everywhere,  and  at  all 
times,  one  and  the  same  doctrine,  free  from  all  admixture  of 


error." 


"  I  do  not  forget  what  I  have  conceded.     I  say,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  that  'the 
purest  churches  under  heaven  are  subject  both  to  mixture 
;ui<l  error;  and  some  have  so  degenerated  as  to  become  no 
churches  of  Christ,  but  synagogues  of  Satan.    Nevertheless, 
there  shall  be  always  a  church  on  earth  to  worship  God  ac- 
o  his  will.' " 
••  I ;nt  thi-  does  nol  relieve  you,  for  it  says  positively  the 
purest  churches  under  heaven  arc  subject  to  mixture  and 
error.     Then  there  isno  church  not  liable  to  error  and  cor- 
ruption.    Then,  whatever  your  Presbyterian  church  may 
claim,  it  does  not  claim,  evi  n  a    the  church,  to  be  able  to 
h  infallibly  ;  therefore  does  not  even  claim  to  be  such  a 
church  as  the  Roman  Catholic  church  claims  to  he.     Con- 
icntlv  she  cannot  he  get  up  as  an  adverse  claimant.    Tlio 
title  she  claim    ie  not  the  title  the  Catholic  Church  claims, 
and  therefore,  if  established,  does  not   necessarily  negative 
hers,     [f,  then,  you  concede  thai  our  Lord  did  founasuch 
a  church  as  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  claims  to  be,  you 
must  concede  that  it  is  not  the  Pre  byterian." 

rot  at  all;  for  does  not  the  <  !oni<  ly,  '  Neverthe- 

,  there  shall  be  always  a  church  on  earth  which  shall 
wor  hip  C"<l  according  to  his  will  C  " 


72  THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 

"  True  ;  but  this  either  amounts  to  nothing,  or  it  contra- 
dicts what  you  have  just  alleged.  If  it  means  that  there 
shall  always  be  on  earth  a  church  which  teaches  God's  word 
infallibly," then  it  is  false  to  say  that  the  purest  churches 
under  heaven  are  subject  to  mixture  and  error ;  but  if  it 
means  that  the  church  which  worships  God  according  to  his 
will  is  not  free  from  mixture  and  error,  it  amounts  to  noth- 
ing, for  it  proposes  no  church  claiming  to  be  what  the  Cath- 
olic Church  claims  to  be,  since  it  is  undeniable  that  she 
claims  to  teach  without  the  least  mixture  or  error." 

"  But  one  may  be  subject  to  error,  and  yet  not  err  in  fact. 
The  church  is  not  exempt  from  the  liability  to  err,  but  there 
is  always  a  portion  of  it  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  does  not 
err." 

"  What  prevents  it?" 

"  The  grace  of  God  ;  for  God  will  not  suffer  the  gates  of 
hell  wholly  to  prevail  against  his  church." 

"  Very  well ;  but  is  the  church,  what  your  Confession  calls 
the  '  visible  Catholic  Church,'  herself  always  preserved  by 
this  grace  from  error  ?  and  if  so,  can  she  be  said  to  be  sub- 
ject to  error  ? " 

"  The  visible  Catholic  Church  consists  of  all  those  persons 
throughout  the  world  who  prof  ess  the  true  religion,  together 
with  their  children.  There  is  always  a  portion  of  these  who 
are,  though  grace,  preserved  from  error ;  and  therefore  there 
is  always  a  church  or  body  of  worshippers  who  worship  God 
according  to  his  will.  In  some  periods  the  number  of  these 
is  very  small,  in  others  it  is  large." 

"  But  you  do  not  answer  my  question.  Individuals  may 
err,  particular  branches  of  the  church  may  fail ;  but  does  the 
church,  the  teaching  and  judging  authority  of  the  church,  in 
matters  of  faith  and  morals,  ever  err  ? " 

"Individual  members  and  particular  churches  may  err,  but 
God  always  preserves  some  individuals  who  do  not  err,  who 
are  witnesses  for  him  in  the  darkest  and  worst  of  times. 
Consequently,  the  whole  church  never  falls  into  error." 

"But  your  Confession  declares  the  visible  Catholic  Church 
to  be  a  kingdom.  Jesus  Christ,  it  says,  '  hath  erected  in  this 
world  a  kingdom,  which  is  his  church.'  Now  to  a  kingdom 
it  is  essential  that  there  be  a  supreme  authority.  There  may 
be  provincial  and  communal  governments  with  local  author- 
ity, customs,  and  usages,  but  they  must  all  be  subordinated  to 
one  supreme  central  authority,  or  else  you  have  not  one 
kingdom,  but  as  many  separate  kingdoms  as  you  have  sepa- 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 


73 


rate  local  governments.  The  kingdom  erected  by  our  Lord 
is  one,  not  many,  and  therefore  must  have  somewhere,  some- 
how constituted,  a  supreme  central  authority,  from  which 
all  the  subordinate  authorities  derive  their  authority,  and  to 
which  they  are  responsible.  This  supreme  central  authority 
is,  in  the  case  of  the  church,  the  church  teaching  and  gov- 
erning, and  is  what  is  specially  meant  by  the  church,  when 
Bpeaking  of  its  fallibility  or  infallibility.  Now  my  question 
is,  whether  the  church  herself,  that  is,  the  supreme  central 
authcity  from  which  all  the  particular  and  local  authorities 
are  derived,  is  subject  to  error,  or  by  grace  rendered  infal- 
lible." 

"  I  know  no  such  authority  as  you  speak  of  but  that  of 
Jesus  Christ  himself,  who  is  the  head  and  husband  of  the 
faithful,  and  he  of  course  cannot  err." 

"  You  admit  that  the  church  is  a  kingdom  f  r 

"  Yes." 

"  And  a  kingdom  erected  in  this  world  ?  " 

"  I  do." 

"  And  that  where  there  is  no  supreme  central  authority 
there  is  no  kingdom?" 

u There  must  be  such  authority,  but  it  may  be  in  Jesus 
Christ,  who  is  the  invisible  head  of  the  church." 

"  It  is  the  authority  that  constitutes  the  kingdom,  not  the 

kingdom  the  authority     for  prior  to  the  authority,  the  king- 

q  is  not.     The  authority  and  kingdom  must  be  in  the 

ie  order.     If,  then,  the  Kingdom  is  in  the  visible  order, 

the  authority  which  makes  ii  a  visible  kingdom  must  be  in 

the  risible  order,  and  therefore  itself  be  visible.     You  could 

••all  <  irr.it  Britain  or  Prance  a  visible  kingdom,  if  one  or 

the  other  had  no  visible  Bupreme  authority     The  most  you 

lid  Bay  would    ,e,  that    there    is  an    invisihle    fingdom    in 

it  Britain  or  Prance,  not  tnat  either  is  itself  a  visible 
kingdom.  So  of  the  church.  If  it  is  a  visible  kingdom,  it 
mi,  ea  supreme  visible  authority;  if  not,  it   is  not  a 

visible,  but  an  invisible  Kingdom.    The  individuals  might 
he  risible  as  individuals,  but  not  as  members  of  the  church, 
abjects  of  the  invisible  authority,     in  such  thedia 

tinrtiun  your  <  lonfession  makes,  and  wnich  you  contend  for, 
between  the  risible  church,  and  the  invisible,  would  be  a 
tinction  without  a  difference.  When,  therefore,  yon  tell 
nir,  b  you  <lo  in  your  Confession,  that  the  risible  church  is 
a  kingdom  vn  this  icorld,  yon  aecessarily  tell  me  that  it  has 
in  this  world  a  supreme  visible  central  authority.    And  in 


74  TITE   TWO    BROTHERS. 

point  of  fact,  Presbyterians  themselves  do  recognize  such 
authority  ;  for  they  regard  their  church  as  a  polity,  and  it  has 
its  constitution,  its  officers,  its  supreme  legislature,  and  su- 
preme judicatory.  If  not,  what  means  the  General  Assem- 
bly, winch  'represents  in  one  body'  all  the  particular 
churches  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  and  to  which 
belongs  'the  power  of  deciding  in  all  controversies  respect- 
ing doctrine  and  discipline  ;  of  reproving,  warning,  of  bear- 
ing testimony  against  error  in  doctrine,  or  immorality  in 
practice,  in  any  church,  presbytery,  or  synod  ;  of  erecting 
new  synods  when  it  shall  be  judged  necessary  ;  of  superin- 
tending the  concerns  of  the  whole  church  ; of  sup- 
pressing schismatical  contentions  and  disputations,'  tfcc,  and 
to  which  every  candidate  for  ordination  must  promise  obedi- 
ence and  subjection  ? " 

"  There  is  a  supreme  visible  government  of  the  church, 
under  God,  I  admit." 

"  Under  God;  and  who  ever  dreamed  of  a  supreme  gov- 
ernment of  the  church  over  God  ? " 

"  The  Papists." 

"  Nonsense  !  Do  you  not  know  that  Catholics  hold  Jesus 
Christ  to  be  the  supreme  invisible  Head  of  the  church,  and 
that  they  call  the  pope  his  vicar  ?  If  the  pope  is  the  vicar 
of  Jesus  Christ,  how  can  he  be  above  him  ?  God  is  supreme, 
the  sovereign  of  sovereigns,  and  there  is  no  power  not  from 
him  and  subject  to  him.  So  no  more  of  this  nonsense.  But 
you  hold  the  church  to  be  a  kingdom  or  polity,  do  you  not  ? " 

"I  do." 

"  And  as  such  it  has  its  government,  its  supreme  author- 
ity ;  for  if  not,  it  is  no  kingdom  or  polity." 

"Be  it  so." 

"  Now,  what  I  ask  is,  Does  this  supreme  authority,  such 
as  it  is  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  claim  to  be  infallible  in 
all  that  concerns  faith  and  morals  ? " 

"  It  does  not." 

"  Then  your  plea  of  an  adverse  title  amounts  to  nothing ; 
the  title  you  allege  is  not  the  negative  of  that  claimed  by 
the  church.  The  title  she  claims  is  that  of  an  infallible 
teacher  of  God's  word  ,  the  title  you  set  up  is  that  of  a  fal- 
lible teacher,  which  you  may  well  be  without  prejudice  to 
her  claim  ;  for  you  can  claim  to  teach  fallibly  without  de- 
nying her  claim  to  teach  infallibly?'' 

"But  were  I  to  grant  this,  it  would  not  follow  that  the 
claim  of  Koine  must  be  conceded." 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS  75 

"  Not  from  this  fact  alone ;  but  as  you  have  conceded 
that  the  title  was  issued,  and  must  vest  somewhere,  in  some 
one,  it  follows  necessarily  that  it  vests  in  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church,  if  it  vests  in  no  one  else.  And  as  she  is  in 
possession,  you  must  concede  it  to  her,  unless  you  can  pro- 
duce and  establish  an  adverse  title." 

"  The  Greek  Church  has  as  good  a  title  as  the  Romish." 

"  That  is  not  to  the  purpose.  The  Greek  Church  has 
cither  a  valid  title,  or  none  at  all.  It  is  not  enough  to  say 
that  6he  has  as  good  a  title  as  the  Roman  Church ;  you  must 
say  she  has  a  perfect  title,  or  say  nothing." 

"'I  say,  then,  she  has  a  perfect  title." 

"  Then  she  is  the  church  of  God.  Why,  then,  are  you 
not  in  her  communion  ?  " 

"That  is  neither  here  nor  there.  You  have  no  right  to 
(■•include  any  thing  to  her  prejudice  from  my  practice.  I 
may  be  inconsistent.     What  then?  " 

"  But  she  condemns  you,  and  has  solemnly  anathematized 
every  one  of  your  doctrines,  with  a  single  exception,  in 
which  you  depart  from  the  teachings  of  the  Roman  Church." 

"  Be  it  so  ;  what  then  ?  That  may  prove  that  we  Prot- 
estant- are  wrong,  but  not  that  she  is  wrong,  or  you  right." 

"  Moreover,  she  doea  not  even  claim  to  be  the  One  Holy 
<  latholic  Church,  and  to  have  the  supreme  central  authority 
over  the  whole  body  of  the  faithful  throughout  the  world. 
She  does  not  pretend  to  unchurch  the  church  of  Rome,  or 
even  that  the  Unman  Church  does  or  ever  did  owe  subjec- 
tion to  her.  She  admits,  even  to  this  day,  the  Roman  ( latho- 
Hc  Church    to    be    truly   the   church  of  Christ   in    what,  was 

originally  the  patriarchate  of  the  West,  that  the  pope  is  the 
legitimate  patriarch  of  the  West,  and  rightfully  exercises 
patriarchal  authority  over  that  patriarchate.     She  does  not 

claim  and  never  has  claimed   for   herself  the  title  she  denies 

to  Rome.  She  denies  the  supreme  authority  over  the  whole 
church  claimed  and  exercised  by  the  pope,  not  because 
she  claims  the  supremacy  for  herself,  hut  because  she 
denies  that  anj  buce  supremacy  was  conferred  on  any  one 

in  the  original  < BtitUtlOE  of  the  church.      She  is,  then,  no 

ml-.  laimant,  and  in  all  essentia]  respects,  except  this 

one.  -In-  concedes  virtually,  if  DOt  expressly,  the  title  claimed 

by  Rome,  al  leas!  so  far  a-  it  is  now  in  question.  So  von 
cannol  gel  an  adverse  claimant  in  the  Greek  Church.  In 
deed,  when  von  have  once  conceded  that  our  Lord  founded 

>h  a  chmch  a-  the  Roman  claim  to  be,  you  must  concede 


<0  THE   TWO   BROTH ER8. 

that  the  Roman  is  that  church,  for  there  is  no  other  that 
even  claims  to  be  it." 

"That  is  hardly  true  The  Anglican  Church  claims  to 
be  it." 

"The  Anglican  Church,  as  well  as  your  own,  puts  on 
lofty  airs,  and  she  now  and  then  tells  us  gravely  that  she  is 
Catholic, — not  Roman,  but  Catholic, — and  lets  off  her 
double  battery  of  popguns  on  the  one  hand  against  Rome, 
and  on  the  other  against  Presbyterians,  Baptists,  Congrega- 
tionalists,  Methodists,  &c. ;  but  she  has  not  courage  enough 
to  claim  to  be  the  Catholic  Church  in  its  unityT  and  integrity. 
She  claims,  at  most,  to  be  only  a  branch  of  it,  which  implies 
that  the  root  and  trunk  are  elsewhere ;  and  she  does  not 
even  pretend  that  the  supreme  visible  central  authority  she 
obeys  or  exercises  is  the  supreme  visible  central  authority 
of  the  whole  church  of  Christ.  Moreover,  she  confesses 
that  she  is  fallible,  that  she  has  heretofore  erred  grievously 
in  doctrine  and  manners,  and  may  err  again.  Her  claim, 
therefore,  is  not  the  same  as  that  of  the  Roman  Church,  and 
her  title  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  an  adverse  title.  So  you 
can  succeed  no  better  with  her  than  with  the  Greek  Church, 
or  than  with  your  own." 

CHAPTER  Vin. 

"  But  you  told  me  the  other  day,"  replied  James,  after  a 
short  pause,  "that  the  essential  character  of  the  Romish 
Church  is,  that  she  claims  to  have  received  a  divine  com- 
mission or  authority  to  teach,  or  to  keep  and  declare  the 
word  of  God." 

"  To  keep  and  expound  or  teach  the  word  of  God,  I 
grant ;  but  I  conceded  this  only  so  far  as  concerned  the 
special  controversy  in  which  we  were  engaged,  as  I  then 
told  you.  Nevertheless,  I  admit  now  that  the  essential 
claim  of  the  church  is,  that  she  has  been  divinely  commis- 
sioned or  authorized  to  teach  the  word  of  God.'" 

"  Then  you  must  concede  that  any  other  church  claiming 
to  be  divinely  commissioned  is  an  adverse  claimant." 

"  Divinely  commissioned  to  teach,  granted." 

"  Then  it  is  not  true  that  there  is  no  adverse  claimant 
against  Rome,  as  you  so  confidently  assert ;  for,  in  point  of 
fact,  the  Greek  Church,  the  Presbyterian,  and  the  Anglican 
each  claims  for  itself  to  be  divinely  commissioned." 

"  The  Greek  Church  claims  the  commission  for  herself  in 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS.  .  i 

no  sense  in  which  she  does  not  concede  it  to  Rome,  and 
therefore  is  not  an  adverse  claimant.  The  Presbyterian 
and  Anglican  Churches  do  not  in  reality  claim  it  at  all ;  for 
both  deny  the  fact  of  a  divine  commission  in  denying  the 
infallibility  of  the  church." 

"But  to  deny  the  infallibility  is  not  necessarily  to  deny 
the  divine  commission  of  the  teacher  ;  and,  therefore,  not  to 
claim  the  infallibility  is  not  to  fail  to  claim  the  commission." 

"The  commission  in  question  is  the  commission  to  teach, 
and  must  be  the  warrant  of  infallibility  in  the  teacher,  un- 
less God  can  authorize  the  teaching  of  error." 

"  That  proves  too  much.  All  the  teachers  of  your  church, 
you  hold,  are  divinely  commissioned  ;  but  you  cannot  hold 
that  each  is  infallible ;  for,  if  you  should,  you  would  be 
obliged  to  hold  that  Luther  himself  did  not  err,  since,  as  is 
well  known,  he  was  at  first  a  Romish  doctor." 

"The  teachers  of  the  church  are  all  divinely  commissioned 
to  teach  in  communion  with  and  in  subordination  to  the 
sovereign  pontiff,  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  I  admit,  and  so 
long  as  they  so  teach,  they  teach  infallibly  ;  but  when  they 
break  away  from  that  communion,  and  as-ume  to  be  inde- 
pendent teachers,  they  are  fallible  ;  for  then  they  have  no 
divine  commission." 

"Is  there  any  of  these  teachers,  taken  individually,  who 
may  not  break  from  that  communion,  and  assume  to  be  an 
independent  teacher  1 " 

u  No  one  except  the  pope  himself." 

""What,  then,  i-  your  warrant  that  your  particular  teacher 

does  oot  err '." 

"  The  fact  that  he  teaches  in  communion  with  and  in  sub- 
ordination to  the  sovereign  pontiff." 
3o  the  pope  is  his  voucher  ?" 

"  ( 'ommiinion  with  the  pope." 

"AVho  voucIk    for  i be  pope ?" 

"The  divine  commission,  which  gives  him,  as  tie' successor 
of  St.  Peter,  plenary  authority  to  teach  and  declare  the 
word  of  God 

"If  the  pope  should  fail,  your  whole  church  mighl  fall  to 
the  ground." 

••  Not  necessarily  ;  bul  the  pope  cannot  fail,  because  he  is 

divinely  commit  ioned.     A-  the  snoce   or  or  St.  Peter,  he 

in  I,-         be  authority  of  St.  Peter,  and  the  promise  made  to 

him.     'Upon  this  rock  will   I   build  my  church,  and  the 

if  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.'     The  pope,  there 


- 


TUE   TWO    HKoTIIKRS. 


fore,  since  lie  has  the  promise  of  God,  cannot  fail,  unless 
God  himself  can  fail,  which  is  not  supposable." 

"  But  your  argument,  nevertheless,  proves  too  much  ;  for 
all  legitimate  civil  governments  are  divinely  commissioned, 
and  yet  no  man  can  pretend  that  they  are  infallible." 

"  Commissioned  to  govern,  but  not  to  teach  or  declare  the 
word  of  God.     There  is  a  difference  between  the  commis- 
sion to  govern  and  the  commission  to  teach.     Teaching  has 
reference  to  the  conscience,  to  the  internal  act  of  the  man  ; 
government  only  to  external  acts.     The  teacher  is  commis- 
sioned to   teach  the   truth ;   government   is  commissioned 
simply  to  control  and  direct  the  external  acts  for  the  general 
good,  according  to  the  rules  of  prudence  ;  and  to  attain  its 
end,  it  is  not  essential  that  it  should  be  able  to   propose 
measures  which  are  absolutely  in  all  and  every  respect  the 
wisest  and  the  best ;  nor  is  it  necessary,  in  order  to  believe 
it  for  the  general  good,  and  to  obey  all  its  commands,  that 
the  subject  should  believe  it  infallible,  or  that  it  can  never 
err  in  any  one  of  its  measures.     He  can  obey  an   unwise 
order,  and  it  may  be  for  the  general  good  that  sometime  he 
should  do  so.     But  the  end  of  teaching  is  the  proposition 
and  belief  of  the  truth.     All  teaching  is  in  order  to  truth. 
If  the  teacher  be  fallible,  the  end  of  teaching  is  not  secured  ; 
for  he  may  propose,  and  I  may  believe,  on  his  proposition, 
what  is  not  true.     The  commission  is  authority  from  God 
to  teach,  and  a  command  to  those  the  teacher  is  commis- 
sioned to  teach  to  believe  as  the  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth,  what  he  teaches.     If  fallible,  then,  he  may  propose 
and  I  believe,  on  divine  authority,  what  is  false  ;  and  then 
God  may  authorize  the  teaching  and  the  believing  of  false- 
hood,— which  cannot  be ;  for  he  is  infinitely  true,  and  can 
neither  be  deceived  nor  deceive,  which  would  not  be  the 
fact,  if  he  could  authorize  the  teaching  or  the  believing  of 
falsehood.     Therefore,  the   divine  commission  to   teach — 
and  it  is  only  of  the  commission  to  teach  that  I  speak — 
must    necessarily   be  the  warrant   of    infallibility  in   the 
teacher." 

"  Though  the  divinely  commissioned  teacher  be  assumed 
to  be  infallible,  the  commission  is  not  itself  necessarily  and 
essentially  a  warrant  of  his  infallibility." 

"  To  the  full  extent  of  the  matter  covered  by  the  commis- 
sion it  is,  you  yourself  do  and  must  admit." 

"  I  do  not  admit  it.  A  commission,  by  the  simple  fact 
that  it  is  a  commission,  does  no  such  thing  ;  for  a  govern- 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS.  70/ 

ment  may  commission  an  ambassador,  and  yet  that  ambas- 
sador may  misrepresent  its  will  and  intention." 

"  Commissions  in  general  may  not,  but  the  divine  com- 
mission to  teach  does.  Human  governments  have  no  power 
to  secure  the  infallibility  of  their  ministers  ;  but  you  cannot 
say  this  of  God.     He  can  make  his  ministers  infallible." 

"  He  can  ;  but  it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  he  does." 

"  I  have  shown  that  he  must,  because  he  cannot  authorize 
either  the  teaching  or  the  believing  of  error,  without  con- 
tradicting his  own  nature,  which  is  infinitely  and  essentially 
true  ;  and  that  he  does,  to  the  full  extent  of  their  commis- 
sion to  teach,  you  yourself  do  and  must  hold,  or  give  up  all 
belief  in  external  revelation." 

"Not  at  all." 

"  Why  do  you  believe  our  Lord  was  the  Son  of  God  ?" 

"  J-Sfcause  he  himself  so  declared." 

"  Why  do  you  believe  his  declarations  ? " 

"  Because  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  could  not  lie." 

"A  good  reason,  after  it  is  proved  that  he  was  the  Son  of 
God  ;  none  at  all  before." 

"  I  believe  him  because  the  miracles  he  performed  proved 
that  he  was  from  God  ;  for  no  man  could  do  the  miracles  he 
did,  unless  God  were  with  him." 

"  \\  iiw'/v,///  (;<>d,  that  is,  sent  or  commissioned  by  God  as 
a  teacher,  hut  not  that  he  was  God." 

"The  miracles  proved  him  to  be  God.  He  raised  the 
dead,  and  none  hut  God  can  raise  the  dead." 

"  None  hut  God  <-an  raise  the  dead  as  efficient  cause;  but 
nun  afl  '/'■'-//•'///"///'//cause  may  raise  them,  as  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  the  apostles  and  many  of  the  saints  have  raised 
the  dead.  How,  then,  from  the  miracle  alone  conclude  that 
our  Lord  raised  the  dead,  not  as  instrumental  cause,  but  as 
u  nt  cause  I  " 

"  Tlie  efficient  cause  was  the  divine  power." 

"Granted.     But  the  divine  power  inherent  in  Jesus,  as 

his  own  proper  power,  Or  the  divine  power  merely  displayed 

on  the  occasion  of  his  saying  to  the  dead,  Arise?  Moses 
emote  the  rock,  and  the  water  gushed  out.  Was  it  Moses, 
or  God  who  stood  behind  Moses,  that  caused  the  water  to 

flow  from  the  rock  I  n 

"God  who  stood  behind  him." 

"So,  for  anghl  the  miracle  itself  says,  it  may  have  been, 
Dot  J  elf ,  but  God  who  stood    behind  him,  that 

ed  the  dead  to  live.    The  miracle  does  not  prove  the 


SO  THE  TWO   BROTHERS. 

proper  divinity  of  our  Lord.  It  only  proves  that  he  was 
sent  from  God,  and  that  God  was  with  Trim,  and  displayed 
his  almighty  power  at  his  word." 

"  Very  well." 

"  The  miracles  having  proved  that  our  Lord  was  from 
God,  that  God  sent  him  and  was  with  him,  you  therefore 
believe  what  he  said.  He  said  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  and 
therefore  you  believe  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  there- 
fore God  himself." 

''Be  it  so." 

"  The  miracles,  then,  simply  proved  his  divine  commis- 
sion, that  is,  accredited  him  as  a  teacher  sent  from  God. 
But  how  from  the  fact  of  his  commission  conclude  the  truth 
of  what  he  said,  if  the  divine  commission  be  not  the  war- 
rant of  infallibility  ?  If  one  who  is  divinely  commissioned 
to  teach,  notwithstanding  his  commission,  may  err,  how  can 
you  say  that  our  Lord  himself  did  not  err,  and  that  you  do 
not  err  in  believing  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God  ?  Indeed,  it 
is  only  on  the  ground  that  the  divine  commission  is  the 
warrant  of  infallibility,  that  your  profession  of  faith  in  the 
Bible  as  the  infallible  word  of  God  is  not  ridiculous  and 
absurd." 

"  The  sacred  writers  were  inspired,  but  the  divinely  com- 
missioned teachers  you  speak  of  are  not.  Being  inspired, 
they  could  know  the  truth  of  what  they  affirmed;  and  being 
honest  and  godly  men,  they  would  not  affirm  what  they  did 
not  know." 

"  That  is  nothing  to  your  purpose.  The  inspiration  was 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  God  simply  telling  or  communi- 
cating to  them  what  they  were  to  teach,  and  they  have  in 
this  respect  no  advantage  over  the  church,  in  case  she  be 
fully  instructed  as  to  what  she  is  to  propose  as  the  word  of 
God.  If  instructed,  it  matters  not,  as  to  her  ability  to 
teach,  whether  instructed  by  immediate  inspiration  to  her- 
self, or  only  mediately  through  that  of  the  prophets  and 
apostles.  She  claims  to  have  been  fully  instructed,  for  the 
commission  under  which  she  professes  to  act  was,  '  Going, 

teach  all   nations ; teaching  them   to   observe  all 

things  whatsoever  I  have  commayided  you.'' — St.  Matt, 
xxviii.  19.  The  alleged  defect  of  immediate  inspiration  in 
her  case,  or  its  presence  in  the  case  of  the  sacred  writers, 
can,  therefore,  of  itself,  be  no  reason  for  believing  one  in 
preference  to  the  other.  The  real  reason  for  believing  the 
sacred  writers  is,  that  God  authorized  them  to  teach  j  and 

Vol.  VI -21 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS.  Q-[ 

you  have  the  same  reason  for  believing  the  church,  if 
you  have  equal  reasons  for  believing  her  authorized  by  God 
to  teach  his  word.  The  commission  is  a  warrant  of  infalli- 
bility in  her  case,  as  much  as  it  was  in  theirs." 

"  But  you  forget  that  I  gave  as  my  reason  for  believing 
the  sacred  writers,  that  they  were  honest  and  godly  men, 
and  would  not  affirm  what  they  did  not  know." 

"  You,  then,  consider  the  personal  character  of  the  teacher 
better  authority  than  the  divine  commission  ?  This  is  a  com- 
mon Protestant  blunder,  and  hence  the  worthlessness  of  the 
greater  part  of  your  treatises  on  the  evidences  of  Christian- 
ity. God's  authority  for  believing  is  not  sufficient  till  man 
indorses  it !  The  best  men  are  fallible,  and  may  be  de- 
ceived. If  we  had  nothing  but  the  personal  characters  of 
the  sacred  writers  on  which  to  rely,  lionest  and  godly  as 
they  certainly  were,  we  should  have  no  sufficient  reason  for 
believing  what  they  wrote  to  be  the  Word  of  God.  Their 
personal  character  may  be  important  when  the  question 
turns  on  their  credibility  as  witnesses  to  the  facts  they  re- 
cord, but  does  not  enter  into  the  account  when  the  question 
is  on  their  authority  as  teachers  of  revealed  truth.  No 
man's  personal  character  is  a  sufficient  warrant  for  believing 
that  any  thing  he  asserts  to  be  a  doctrine  of  revelation  is 
really  and  truly  a  doctrine  of  revelation.  If  it  were,  we 
should  be  obliged  to  believe  whatever  any  man,  whose 
character,  so  far  as  we  know,  is  honest  and  irreproachable, 
chooses  to  teach  as  the  word  of  God.  I  low,  then,  can  you 
maintain  that  the  personal  character  of  the  teacher  is  a  surer 
warrant  of  infallibility  than  the  divine  commission ? M 

"The  simple    fact  that  the  sacred    writers  were  honest 
and  godly  meil  may  Q01  I"'  alone   a  sufficient   reason  for  06 

Bering  them,yet,if  they  had  been  bad  men,  that  would 
ne  nave  been  a  Bnfficienl  reason   for  not  believing  them. 

For  God  docs  not  and  will  not  speak  by  had  men." 

"Thai  isnol  so  certain.     Balaam,  the  son  of  Poor,  was  a 

bail  man  ;  y<t  God  Spokfl  by  him,  and  cansed  him  to  utter  a 

gloriotu  prophecy.     Do  yon  believe  his  prophecy  on  hisper- 
nal  character,  or  because  divinely  commissioned  teachers 

have  told  yon  thai  it  was  qoI  he  who  spoke  from  himself, 

but  the  Lord  who  spoke  by  him  '" 

■■  I  believe  t1  ed   writers  because   God  authorized 

them  tO  tench  hi.-  word.  :md  the  EolyGhoSl  was  with  them 
to  enable  them  to  teach  it,  and  to  preserve  them  from  error 
in  teaching  it" 


S2  THE  TWO    BROTHEBS. 

"  Is  not  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  far  as  needed, 
necessarily  implied  in  the  commission  or  authority  to 
teach?" 

"  If  the  commission  were  the  warrant  of  infallibility,  it 
would  be  so  implied  ;  but  that  is  precisely  what  I  deny." 

"No  man  can  teach  infallibly  without  it  ?" 

"No." 

"  But  with  it  any  man  can  teach  infallibly  ? " 

"  Perhaps  so." 

"  No  perhaps  about  it.  It  must  be  so  positively,  or  you 
cannot  assert  the  infallibility  of  the  sacred  penmen." 

"  God  leaves  the  will  free  ;  any  one  who  has  the  assistance 
may  teach  infallibly,  if  he  chooses ;  but  it  does  not  therefore 
follow  that  he  must  and  will  so  teach." 

"  In  what  concerns  personal  morality,  natural  or  Christian, 
the  will  is  free ;  but  in  teaching  at  the  command  of  God,  it 
is  not.  The  individual  speaks  not  as  moved  by  his  own  will, 
but  as  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Thus,  Balaam  was 
forced  against  his  will  to  bless  Israel,  and  to  utter  a  prophecy 
he  did  not  intend,  and  which  he  was  unwilling  to  utter ;  for 
it  was  against  his  interest,  and  he  loved  the  wages  of  in- 
iquity. Thus,  too,  the  prophet  Jonas  sought  to  run  away 
from  the  Lord,  and  not  to  preach  as  commanded  to  the 
Ninevites,  but  the  Lord  brought  him  back  by  a  miracle,  and 
forced  him  to  utter  his  word.  Moreover,  if  the  matter  de- 
pended on  the  human  will,  the  teachings  of  no  human 
teacher,  however  authorized  and  assisted  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  could  ever  be  regarded  as  infallible ;  because  no  one 
could  ever  know  whether  the  teacher  spoke  as  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  or  merely  from  his  own  proper  motion.  In 
vain,  then,  would  you  claim  to  have  in  the  Bible  the  infal- 
lible word  of  God.  Nay,  you  have  yourself  just  said,  the 
Holy  Ghost  enables  the  teachers  to  teach  the  word,  2^.  pre- 
serves them  from  error  in  teaching  it." 

"  In  the  case  of  the  sacred  writers,  not  of  all  men." 

"  For  all  men  have  not  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  teach  the  word  of  God,  nor  are  all  commissioned  to  teach 
it ;  but  if  it  be  what  you  define  it,  any  one  who  has  it  must 
be  able  to  teach,  and  be  preserved  from  error  in  teaching, 
and  therefore  must  teach  the  word  infallibly." 

"  Be  it  so." 

"  But  the  divine  commission  does  not  necessarily  imply 
this  assistance  ? " 

"  No,  it  does  not ;  therefore,  I  admit  the  infallibility  of  the 


THE    TWO    BROTHERS.  83 

sacred  writer-  specially,  and  not  of  divinely  commissioned 
teachers  in  general." 

"  What  is  the  significance  of  the  divine  commission  to 
teach  the  word  of  God  ? " 

"  It  authorizes  the  one  who  receives  it  to  be  a  teacher  of 
God's  word,  but  does  not  necessarily  enable  him  to  teach  it 
infallibly." 

"So  one  may  have  authority  from  God  to  teach  his 
word,  and  yet  not  have  the  ability  to  teach  it  in  the  only 
sense  in  which  God  can  authorize  it  to  be  taught !  What, 
then,  means  the  authority  ? " 

"Why,  it  is  authority  to  teach." 

" Unquestionably,  but  what  is  that?" 

"  He  who  has  it  is  authorized  to  speak  or  teach  in  the 
name  of  God." 

"  That  is,  to  propound  the  word  of  God,  not  in  his  own 
name  and  on  his  own  authority,  but  in  the  name  and  on  the 
authority  of  God  ? " 

"  Yes,  it  meanR  that  he  is  empowered  to  teach  with  divine 
authority." 

"  Can  any  thing  but  truth  be  taught  with  divine  author- 
ity?" 

"  No." 

"  God  cannot  authorize  the  teaching  of  error?" 

"  No  ;  for  that  would  be  the  same  as  to  teach  it." 

"  Then  no  one  not  able  to  teach  the  truth,  and  not  pre- 
server I  from  error  in  teaching  it,  can  be  said  to  teach  by 
divine  authority  ? " 

"  Bo  it  would  seem." 

"  You  say  that  for  God  to  authorize  the  teaching  of  error 
would  be  the  same  as  for  him  to  teach  it? " 
I  do." 

"And  on  the  principle  that  what  is  dono  by  another's 
authority,  it  is  virtually  that  other  that  does  it?  Thus,  what 
the  agenl  does  by  the  authority  of  the  principal  is  held  to 
\„-  done  by  th<'  principal  himself,  who  i  re  ponsible  for  it. 
Wii.it  an  am  l>y  the  authority  of  his  govern- 

menl  is  done  by  his  (government.  Consequently,  what  one 
does  by  the  authority  of  God  is  done  by  God  oimself,  and 
the  responsibility  re  ta  on  him.  and  not,  on  his  agent.  So 
wh.it  mm>-  teaches  by  divine  authority  is  taught  by  God  him- 
■elf,  and  (""l  La  responsible  tor  it.  No  one  can,  then,  lie 
divinely  commissioned  :  h  what  God  may  not  himself 
•h  immediately,  and  for  which  be  will  not  hold  himself 
responsibL 


81  THE   TWO   BROTIIERS. 

"  I  do  not  deny  it." 

"  Can  God  teach  or  be  responsible  for  error,  or  for  any 
thing  but  truth  ? " 

"  He  cannot." 

0  Then  he  can  authorize  no  one  to  teach  any  thing  but 
truth?" 

"He  cannot." 

"  Then  he  who  is  divinely  commissioned  can  teach  noth- 
ing but  truth  ? " 

"  Apparently  so." 

"  He  who  can  teach  nothing  but  truth  is  infallible,  is  he 
not?" 

"  So  it  would  seem." 

"  Then  the  divine  commission  is,  as  I  have  said,  the  war- 
rant of  infallibility,  and  as  one  cannot  be  infallible  without 
the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  necessarily  implies  that 
assistance.  Consequently,  the  claim  to  the  divine  commis- 
sion to  teach  the  word  of  God  is  necessarily  and  essentially 
the  claim  to  infallibility  in  teaching,  and  therefore  to  the 
assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  far  as  needed  to  enable  the 
teacher  to  teach  the  word,  and  to  preserve  him  from  error 
in  teaching  it.     Is  it  not  so  ? " 

"  I  have  been  accustomed  to  think  differently,  but  let  it 
pass." 

"  Then  my  position,  that  the  essential  claim  of  the  church 
is  that  she  teaches  the  word  infallibly,  is  not  different  from 
the  one  I  assumed  the  other  day,  when  I  declared  it  to  be 
the  claim  to  the  commission  to  teach,  or  that  she  had  the 
word  of  God  and  was  its  legal  keeper  and  expounder  ? " 

"  Be  it  so." 

"  Then  you  produce  no  adverse  claimant,  since  you  pro- 
duce none  that  even  pretends  to  be  able  to  teach  the  word 
infallibly." 

"  Very  well.'; 

"  But  in  pleading  an  adverse  title,  you  conceded  that  the 
title  was  issued,  and  vests  somewhere  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
that  there  is  and  must  be  somewhere  such  a  church  as  the 
Roman  claims  to  be.  Now,  as  you  do  not  and  cannot  pro- 
duce an  adverse  claimant,  you  must  concede  that  she  is 
what  she  claims  to  be ;  therefore  the  church  of  God ;  and 
therefore  that  you  and  all  who  make  war  upon  her  are  reb- 
els and  traitors  to  God.  Is  it  in  this  way  you  propose  to 
vindicate  the  reformers  ? " 

Poor  James  was  misled  by  his  Protestant  theology,  which 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  85 

makes  every  thing  pertaining  to  religion  a  sham.  Thus, 
justification  is  with  it,  not  making  one  just,  but  reputing 
him  just, — a  forensic,  not  an  inward,  intrinsic  justification. 
It  is  no  real  justification  at  all,  hut  a  mere  make-believe  jus- 
tification,— to  say  nothing  of  the  blasphemy  of  representing 
God  as  accounting  or  reputing  a  man  just  who  is  intrinsi- 
cally unjust, — for  it  leaves  the  man  as  foul  a  sinner  as  he 
was  before  he  was  justified.  So  in  the  matter  of  the  divine 
commission  to  teach,  this  same  theology  teaches  that  one 
may  have  the  commission,  be  authorized  by  God  to  teach, 
and  yet  not  teach  infallibly,  as  if  God  could  authorize  the 
teaching  of  a  lie !  A  queer  thing  is  this  Protestant  theol- 
ogy !  Well  may  its  authors  and  adherents  boast  themselves 
the  lights  of  the  age  ! 

This  notion,  that  the  authority  does  not  necessarily  imply 
the  ability  to  teach,  is  the  source  of  much  of  that  prejudice 
which  exists  in  the  Protestant  community  against  all  claims 
to  authority  from  God  to  teach  his  word.  There  is  a  gen- 
eral feeling  among  the  great  majority  of  intelligent  Protes- 
tants, that  there  can  be  no  divine  authority  to  teach  where 
there  is  not  the  ability  to  teach ;  and  seeing  nowhere  among 
themselves  any  teacher  who  has  the  ability,  they  very  natu- 
rally conclude  that  no  one  has  the  authority.  It  is  absurd, 
say  they,  to  suppose  that  God  authorizes  a  man  like  our- 

.  es  to  teach,  a  man  who  knows  no  more  than  we  do,  and 
is  no  better  able  to  teach  than  the  rest  of  us.  When  the 
Catholic  speaks  to  them  of  the  commission  of  his  church  to 
teach,  and  that  God  gives  her  authority  to  teach  all  nations, 
they  turn  up  their  noses,  and  ask  us,  if  we  suppose  they  are 
bucu  fools  as  to  believe  that  God,  the  common  Father  of  us 
nil,  has  given  to  mortals  like  ourselves  authority  to  teach  us, 
and  commanded  us  to  yield  up  our  own  reason  and  judg- 
ment to  <>wr  fellow-men  ! 

Now.  probe  the  matter  to  the  bottom,  and  yon  will  find 
that  these  people  object  by  no  means  to  the  idea  that  <T i < »<  1 

may  authorize  men  to  teach  his  word,  but  simply  to  (he 
notion  that  the  authority  can  e\i-t   where  the  requisite  <pial- 

ificationa  to  teach  are  wanting.  Their  real  objection  is  to 
the  doctrine  which  Mr.  James  Milwood  attempts  to  main- 
tain, thai  teachers  confessedly  fallible  as  teachers  may  never- 
theless he  divinely  commissioned  to  teach.     They  object, 

not  to  the  Catholic  <loet rinc  of  authority,  but  to  the  Protes- 
tant. To  really  God-commissioned  teachers,  that  is,  teach- 
ers who,  in  their  judgment,  have   the   intrinsic  ability  to 


$6  TTTE   TWO   BROTHERS. 

teach  truly  and  infallibly  tlic  word  of  God,  they  do  not  ob- 
ject, as  is  evident  from  their  tendency  to  hero-worship,  and 
their  common  remark  that  he  who  is  able  is  divinely  commis- 
sioned. Read  Carlyle,  Emerson,  the  transcendentalists  gen- 
erally, and  you  will  find  that  it  is  always  to  the  notion  of 
authority  without  the  intrinsic  ability  that  they  object,  and 
that  wherever  they  fancy  the  ability  they  are  ready  to  con- 
cede the  commission.  they  err  in  making  the  ability  the 
warrant  of  the  authority,  instead  of  making  the  commis- 
sion the  warrant  of  the  ability ;  yet  they  are  right  against 
Protestantism,  and  perceive  a  great  and  essential  truth 
which  old-fashioned  Protestantism  denies,  namely,  that  the 
authority  and  the  intrinsic  ability  to  teach  are  inseparable, 
and  that  any  authority  separate  from  the  ability  cannot  be 
conferred  by  God,  and  is  therefore  a  usurpation.  To  one 
who  is  familiar  with  the  Protestant  community,  and  who 
comprehends  its  more  recent  developments  of  thought,  it  is 
evident  that  Protestants  are  very  generally  growing  tired 
and  sick  of  sham  and  shamming.  They  are  rapidly  becom- 
ing unable  to  satisfy  themselves  with  a  religion  which  is  no 
real  religion,  but  a  mere '  make-believe  religion.  They  cry 
out  from  the  depths  of  their  hearts  for  something  real,  for 
something  which  is,  not  merely  seems.  They  see  that  the 
reformers  built  on  mere  seeming,  and  taught  and  acted  a  lie, 
— gave  them  hollow  appearances,  and  no  solid  realities, — at 
best,  the  mere  hull  without  the  kernel, — a  symbol  sym- 
bolizing nothing, — a  mere  pretence  ;  and  they  grow  indig- 
nant, turn  away  in  disgust,  and  say,  "  Give  us  something 
real,  something  that  is,  if  it  be  but  the  devil ;  for  any 
thing  that  is  is  better  than  nothing  seeming  to  be  some- 
thing. If  your  religion  is  a  mere  sham,  call  it  a  sham  and 
away  with  it ;  for  the  oldest  gospel  is,  that  a  lie  is  a  lie,  and 
"no  truth.  Stop  lying,  stop  seeming,  and  begin  to  be."  So 
deep  is  this  feeling  of  the  hollovvness  of  all  Protestant  pre- 
tensions, and  so  strong  is  the  craving  for  something  real, 
that  it  has  almost  become  one  of  the  cants  of  the  day. 

It  is  true,  that,  knowing  no  religion  but  the  Protestant, 
they  to  whom  we  refer  conclude  rashly  that  Catholicity  is 
also  a  sham,  also  a  mere  hollow  pretence,  and  that  no  relig- 
ion is  real  but  that  of  nature.  But  in  this  they  draw  a  con- 
clusion quite  too  broad  for  their  premises.  The  church 
detests  Protestantism  as  heartily  as  they  do,  and,  in  most 
cases,  for  like  reasons.  She  detests  it  because  it  is  outward, 
lifeless,  empty,  and  no  living  reality ;  because  it  contains 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  87 

nothing  solid,  substantial,  has  no  bottom,  but  is  bottomless, 
like  the  pit  from  which  it  is  an  exhalation,  and  into  which, 
as  the  religious  atmosphere  clears  up,  it  subsides.  She  con- 
demns with  all  her  energy  whatever  is  mere  pretence  or 
make-believe.  She  tolerates  no  empty  forms,  no  insignifi- 
cant rites,  no  vain  ceremonies.  She  will  and  can  approve 
nothing  which  is  not  real,  solid,  substantial.  She  teaches 
the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  and  always  presents  the 
very  reality  she  symbolizes.  She  can  call  no  man  justified 
who  is  not  intrinsically  just,  and  recognize  no  teacher  as 
teaching  by  divine  authority  who  does  not  teach  God's  word 
infallibly.  If  these  people  would  turn  their  attention  to 
her,  they  would  soon  find  the  truth  and  reality  for  which 
their  hearts  cry  out ;  for,  to  say  the  least,  grace  is  not  less 
true  and  real  than  nature. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

"  Unquestionably,"  at  length  James  replied,  "  there  is  no 
other  church  which  makes  the  same  specific  claim  as  the 
Romish,  and  if  my  plea  of  an  adverse  title  is  to  be  taken  as 
a  concession  that  God  has  founded  such  a  church,  I  of 
course  must  concede  that  she  is  it,  and  that  the  reformers 
cannot  be  justified." 

"  1  have  not  confined  you  to  her  specific  character ;  I  have 
<»tily  restricted  you  to  her  generic  character,  to  what  she 
must  absolutely  be,  if  a  church  at  all,  with  divine  authority 
to  teach." 

"  Will,  let  that  pass.  I  made  the  concession,  not  abso- 
lutely, but  provisonly;  since,  as  you  well  know,  I  do  not 
ami  cannot,  ae  a  Presbyterian,  admit  that  our  Lord  ever 
founded,  specifically  or  generically,  such  a  church  as  the 
Romish  claims  to  be,  and  which  is  no  church  of  Christ,  but 
a  synagogue  of  Satan." 

Then   you  refract  your  plea  of  an  adverse  title,  and  re- 
•  v<>iir  concession  ? 

••  [do." 

"  Very  well ;  as  I  have  do  wish  to  take  advantage  of  your 
mi  yon  may  do  so.     Wliat  do  you  plead  now?" 

''The  Romish  church  is  corrupt,  and  by  her  corruptions 
forfeited  her  title  to  be  the  cnurch  of  ( l-od." 

"That         mr  original  plea,  which  yon  withdrew  for  the 

•  of  pleading  thai  n<>  title  was  ever  issued,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  our  Lord  had  founded  no  Buch  cnurch  as  she 


88  THE   TWO   BROTHERS. 

claims  to  be.  You  will  remember  that  you  cannot  plead  at 
one  and  the  same  time  the  forfeiture  of  title,  and  that  no 
title  ever  existed.  A  title  which  never  existed  cannot 
have  been  forfeited.  The  allegation,  that  the  church  has 
forfeited  her  title,  concedes,  then,  that  the  title  originally 
existed,  and  was  hers.  Am  I  to  understand  you  as  meaning 
to  concede  that  our  Lord  did  originally  found  such  a  church 
as  the  Roman  claims  to  be,  and  that  she  was  originally  that 
church  ? " 

"  Not  at  all.  1  do  not  admit  that  such  a  title  as  she  claims 
ever  existed." 

"  You  deny,  then,  that  our  Lord  ever  founded  such  a 
church  as  she  claims  to  be,  that  is,  a  church  with  authority 
from  him  to  teach." 

"  I  do." 

"  But  she  is  in  possession  as  such  a  church,  and  possession 
is  prima  facie  evidence  of  title.  If,  then,  you  allege  that 
no  such  title  ever  existed,  the  burden  of  proof  is  on 
you.  But  you  cannot  prove  that  no  such  title  ever  existed, 
as  you  learned  in  our  conversation  the  other  day.  Moreover, 
you  have  just  alleged  forfeiture  of  title,  which  concedes 
that  the  title  originally  existed  and  was  vested  in  the  church 
of  Rome.     You  cannot  now  deny  that  it  ever  existed." 

"I  admit  a  title  once  existed,  and  was  vested  in  her, 
though  not  such  a  title  as  she  claims ;  and  when  I  say  that 
she  has  forfeited  her  title,  I  mean  not  that  she  has  forfeited 
such  a  title  as  she  now  claims,  but  such  a  title  as  she  origi- 
nally had." 

"  That  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  But  what  was  that 
title?" 

Ci  I  have  told  you  already,  in  declaring  that  she  has  for- 
feited her  title  to  be  the  Church  of  God.  I  do  not  deny 
that  the  church  of  Rome  was  once  a  pure  church,  but  I 
contend  that  she  is  now  corrupt,  and  no  longer  God's  church, 
or  any  portion  of  it." 

"  But  the  pure  church,  the  church  of  God,  is  either  such 
a  church  as  the  Roman  claims  to  be,  or  a  different  church." 

"  It  is  widely  different." 

"  Is  the  church  of  God  one,  or  many  ? " 

"Properly  speaking,  there  is  but  one  church,  although 
the  one  church  may  be  composed  of  many  particular 
churches." 

"  But  such  must  be  the  character  of  the  particular 
churches  as  not  to  detract  from  the  real  unity  of  the 
whole  '." 


THE    TWO    BROTHERS.  89 

"  Granted." 

"  And  this  one  church  composed  of  many  particular 
churches  is  the  church  and  the  only  church  our  Lord 
founded  ? " 

"It  is." 

"  And  it  is  widely  different  from  such  a  church  as  the 
Roman  claims  to  be  ? " 

"  Certainly  it  is." 

"  Then  you  simply  deny  that  our  Lord  ever  founded  such 
a  church  as  the  Roman  claims  to  be,  and  merely  reiterate 
the  plea  you  have  withdrawn." 

"  I  do  not  care  for  that ;  I  am  not  to  be  tied  down  by 
your  arbitrary  rules  of  special  pleading.  The  church  of 
Rome  was  once  pure.  She  then  belonged  to  the  church  of 
God  ;  she  is  now  corrupt,  and  has  forfeited  her  title.  I  do 
not  say  her  title  to  be  such  a  church  as  she  pretends  to  be, 
but  to  be  an  integral  part  of  the  church  of  God." 

"  She  has  degenerated  from  her  original  purity,  and  is 
now  a  corrupt  church  ? " 

"  That  is  what  I  allege." 

"  But  she  is  in  possession  as  the  pure  and  authoritative 
church  of  God,  and  the  burden  of  proof  that  she  is  corrupt 
is  on  you." 

"  I  accept  it,  and  am  ready  to  prove  her  corruption." 

"Corruption  implies  a  change  from  a  former  or  primi- 
tive state.  You  must  know  that  state,  or  you  cannot  know 
that  she  is  corrupt." 

••  She  has  corrupted  the  word  of  God;  she  teaches  the 
commandments  of  men  for  the  pure  word  ;  and  has  so  dis- 
figured the  original  gospel  of  our  Lord,  that  it  can  be  no 
longer  recognized  in  her  teachings." 

"  That  is  for  you  to  prove." 

"1  am  ready  to  prove  it.  Indeed,  it  needs  no  proof.  It 
is  notorious.  The  world  admits  it.  She  has  become  a  sink 
of  corruption  ;  is  full  of  all  manner  of  uncleanness  and 
filth." 

""Words,  brother;  mere  words.  Pause  a  moment  and 
take  breath, and  thru  proceed  to  the  proof.  When  yon  tell 
me  the  Catholic  Church  is  corrupt,  has  degenerated,  yon  as- 
Bume  a  primitive  Btate  from  which  she  has  fallen  ;  and  it  is 
only  l»v  comparing  her  presenl  Btate  with  thai  primitive 
state,  that  you  can  determine  thai  Bhe  lias  fallen  from  it. 
What,  then,  was  that  primitive  state  I  " 

"  I  can  show  what  it  was  from  the  Scriptures." 


<)0  THE  TWO  BROTHERS. 

"  They  are  not  in  your  possession.  You  are  not  their 
legal  keeper,  and  have  no  authority  to  expound  their  sense. 
You  can  therefore  make  no  appeal  to  them  against  the 
church  who  is  in  possession,  and  has,  presumptively,  the 
sole  right  to  interpret  them.  She  interprets  them  in  her 
favor,  and  you  are  bound  to  presume  her  interpretations  to 
be  correct,  till  you  can  prove  by  a  competent  authority  to 
the  contrary.  This  competent  authority  you  are  not;  for, 
on  any  conceivable  hypothesis,  at  the  very  worst  her  au- 
thority is  as  good  as  yours  can  be  at  the  very  best.  You 
must  get  a  commission,  or  at  least  a  jpresum.ptive  commis- 
sion, from  Almighty  God,  as  the  legal  keeper  and  ex- 
pounder of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  before  you  can  prove 
any  thing  from  them  but  your  own  arrogance  and  impu- 
dence." 

"  I  can  prove  from  the  early  fathers  that  the  primitive 
church  was  essentially  different  from  the  present  Romish 
Church/' 

"  That  is,  you  can  prove  it  from  early  tradition  ? " 

"  Yes." 

"  But  the  church  is  in  possession  as  the  keeper  and  ex- 
pounder of  primitive  tradition,  as  well  as  of  the  Sacred  Script- 
ures. She  interprets  it  in  her  own  favor,  and  from  it  proves 
that  she  conforms  perfectly  to  the  primitive  model." 

"  But  she  misinterprets  the  fathers." 

"  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  undeniable  that  the  fathers 
may  without  violence  be  interpreted  as  she  interprets  them, 
and  that  she  rightly  interprets  them  is  to  be  presumed,  till 
the  contrary  is  shown.  Moreover,  as  her  authority  as  the 
interpreter  of  primitive  tradition,  or  of  the  fathers,  is  at  the 
worst  equal  to  yours  at  the  best,  you  have  and  can  have  no 
sufficient  authority  for  setting  her  interpretation  aside.  So 
the  appeal  to  primitive  tradition  will  avail  you  no  more  than 
the  appeal  to  the  Scriptures;  and  the  fact  that  you  have  no 
authority  to  declare  the  sense  of  either  debars  you  from  all 
right  to  appeal  to  either  against  what  she  declares  to  be 
their  sense." 

"  But  she  has  corrupted  the  primitive  faith." 

"  You  cannot  say  that,  unless  you  are  authorized  to  say 

what  the  primitive  faith  was.     She  has  presumptively  the 

right  to  declare  that  faith,  and  she  declares  that  it  was  what 

now  teaches,  and  therefore  she  declares  that  she  has  not 

corrupted  it.     You  are  bound  to  presume  that  she  has  not, 

:  must  prove  that  she   has,  before  you  can  use  an  argu- 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  91 

ment  which  assumes  that  she  has.  But  what  was  the 
original  faith  which  she  has  corrupted  ? " 

"  There  is  a  great  number  of  doctrines  which  she  has  cor- 
rupted. It  is  not  necessary  to  mention  all.  Take,  for  in- 
stance, the  doctrine  of  justification.  The  primitive  doc- 
trine was,  that  man  is  justified  by  faith  alone;  the  Romish 
doctrine  is,  that  man  is  justified  by  works." 

"The  Catholic  doctrine  is,  that  man  is  justified  by  faith 
and  works,  meaning  thereby  works  done  through  grace 
purchased  for  us  by  the  merits  of  our  Lord ;  but  on  what 
authority  do  you  assert  that  the  primitive  doctrine  was,  that 
man  is  justified  bv  faith  alone  ? 

"  The  Holy  Scriptures." 

"  On  what  authority  do  you  assert  that  the  Holy  Script- 
ures teach  it  ? " 

11  Why,  they  teach  it." 

"  You  either  have  authority  for  saying  so,  or  you  have 
not.  But  you  have  not,  as  is  certain  from  the  fact  that  you 
have  no  authority  to  keep  and  expound  the  Scriptures. 
Then  you  say  it  without  authority.  An  assertion  made 
without  any  authority  is  worthless,  and  not  to  be  enter- 
tained. Here  is  the  answer  to  every  instance  of  corruption 
of  doctrine  you  do  or  can  allege.  In  confessing  the  falli- 
bility of  your  sect,  you  have  confessed  that  you  have  no 
authority  from  God  to  teach  his  word.  Then  you  have  no 
authority  for  declaring  what  was  the  primitive  faith,  and 
then  none  for  saying  that  the  church  has  corrupted  it." 

"But  the  Romish  Church  has  forfeited  her  title  to  be 
considered  the  church  of  God  by  authorizing  superstition 
and  idolatry,  for  evidently  no  church  that  authorizes  these 
c;in  bo  the  church  of  God." 

"That  is  something  to  your  purpose,  and  you  will  be  en- 
titled to  a  judgment,  if  the  evidence  sustains  you.  You 
take  dow  the  only  ground  from  which  you  can  legitimately 
frame  an  argument  against  the  church.  Every  previous 
ground  you  have  taken  has  been  untenable,  because  it  re- 
quired the  authority  to  maintain  it  which  you  were  contest- 
ing, and  which  you  had  not  and  were  obliged  to  presume 
to  be  in  the  church  herself.     STou  undertook  to  prosecute 

her  under  the  law  of  grace,  and  tailed  for  the  want  of  a 
Court  of  competent  jurisdiction.  As  she  is  presumptively 
the  Bupreme  court,  under  the  law  of  grace,  you  could  under 
thai  law  institute  qo  pr against  ber:  lor  to  every  alle- 
gation you  could  in  bad  only  to  plead  want  of  juris- 


92 


THE    TWO    BUOTIIKRS. 


diction.  The  only  possible  way  of  prosecuting  her  is  under 
the  law  of  nature,  and  it  is  only  by  proving  her  to  have 
violated  some  precept  of  that  law,  that  you  can  obtain 
judgment  against  her.  The  law  of  nature  falls,  to  some  ex- 
tent, under  the  jurisdiction  of  reason,  and  reason,  to  that 
extent,  is  its  legal  keeper  and  judge,  and  has  the  right  to  sit 
in  judgment  on  its  infractions.  As  the  law  of  nature  and 
that  of  grace  both  have  the  same  origin,  are  enacted  by  the 
same  sovereign  Lawgiver,  and  as  the  latter  confessedly  pre- 
supposes the  former  and  confirms  it,  it  can  never  authorize 
what  the  former  prohibits,  any  more  than  the  former  can 
authorize  what  the  latter  prohibits,  unless  we  may  suppose, 
what  is  not  supposable,  that  God  may  be  in  contradiction 
with  himself.  The  law  of  grace  transcends  the  law  of 
nature,  but  does  not  and  cannot  enjoin  what  it  forbids.  As 
superstition  and  idolatry  are  undeniably  forbidden  by  the  law 
of  nature,  if  you  prove  that  they  are  authorized,  or  in  any 
sense  sanctioned,  by  the  church,  you  prove  that  she  is  not 
and  cannot  be  the  church  of  God.  But  she  does  not 
authorize  or  sanction  them ;  she  strictly  forbids  them. 
Thus,  in  her  catechism  for  children  she  teaches  the  child  to 
ask  and  answer : — 

"  '  Wliai  is  forbidden  by  this  [the  first]  commandment  t 

"  '  To  worship  false  gods  or  idols;  or  to  give  any  thing  else  whatsoever 
the  honor  which  belongs  to  God. 

"  '  What  else  is  forbidden  by  this  commandment? 

"  '  All  false  religions;  all  dealings  with  the  devil;  and  inquiring  after 
things  to  come,  or  secret  things,  by  fortune-tellers  or  superstitious  prac- 
tices. 

"  •  What  else? 

"  '  All  charms,  spells,  and  heathenish  observation  of  omens,  dreams, 
and  such  like  fooleries. 

"  '  Does  this  commandment  forbid  the  making  of  images? 

"  '  It  forbids  making  them  so  as  to  adore  them;  that  is,  it  forbids  mak- 
ing them  our  gods. 

"  '  Does  this  commandment  forbid  all  honor  and  veneration  of  saints  and 
angels  ? 

"  '  No,  we  are  to  honor  them  as  God's  special  friends  and  servants;  but 
not  with  the  honor  which  belongs  to  God. 

"  '  And  is  it  allowable  to  Jtonor  relics,  crucifixes,  and  holy  pictures? 

"  '  Yes;  with  an  inferior  and  relative  honor,  as  they  relate  to  Christ 
and  his  saints,  and  are  memorials  of  them. 

' '  '  May  we,  tlien,  pray  to  relfcs  and  images  ? 

"  '  No,  by  no  means;  for  they  have  no  life  or  sense  to  hear  or  help 
us.' 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  93 

Here  is  evidence  enough  that  the  church  denies  your  charge. 
The  burden  of  proof  is  on  you,  and  you  must  prove  her  guilty 
of  superstition  and  idolatry." 

"  And  I  am  ready  to  prove  it.  The  reformers  charged  her 
with  idolatry,  and  we  have  never  ceased  from  their  day  to 
reiterate  the  charge." 

"  But  a  lie,  though  a  million  of  times  repeated,  is  none  the 
less  a  lie.  Nobody  disputes  that  Protestants  have  accused 
the  church  of  idolatry,  but  that  is  not  to  the  purpose.  You 
must  prove  your  allegation." 

"  Why,  you  might  as  well  ask  me  to  prove  that  there  is  a 
sun  in  trie  heavens.  All  the  world  knows  that  the  church 
of  Rome  is  sunk  in  the  grossest  idolatry  and  the  foulest  super- 
stition." 

"  "Words,  words,  brother  ;  give  me  the  proofs." 

"  Proofs  !  you  need  no  proofs.  The  fact  is  undeniable,  and 
nothing  but  the  grossest  impudence  on  the  part  of  the  Rom- 
ish Church  could  ever  dream  of  denying  it." 

"  No  advance  in  the  argument,  brother.  Have  you  yet  to 
learn  that  the  unsupported  assertions  of  a  man  who  admits 
that  he  speaks  without  authority  are  not  proofs  ?  Here  is 
the  church,  on  the  one  hand,  teaching  her  children,  in  the 
very  first  lessons  she  teaches  them,  to  abhor  idols  and  all 
superstitious  practices ;  and  here  are  you,  on  the  other,  accus- 
ing her  of  superstition,  and  that  worst  and  most  abominable 
species  of  superstition,  idolatry, — she  in  possession  and  to  be 
presumed  to  be  the  church  of  God,  and  you  presumptively 
a  rebel  against  God,  and  a  calumniator,  till  you  make  good 
your  charge.     Prove,  then,  the  charge,  or  withdraw  it. 

"  The  reformers  proved  it,  the  greatest  and  best  of  our 
writers  have  asserted  it ;  it  is  a  question  settled,  res  adjudi- 
cata.  Has  it  not  entered  into  history  ?  Do  you  not  read  it 
in  the  very  elementary  books  for  children?     Look  at  the 

freat  and  enlightened  State  of  Massachusetts!  she  prohibits 
y  law  all  sectarianism  in  her  admirable  system  of  schools, 
and  the  introduction  into  them  of  any  books  which  show  any 

preference  for  one  religions  denomination  over  another ;  and 
v<t  she  does  not  hesitate  to  permit  the  introduction  of  hooks 
whirl:  teach  that  Papists  arc  idolaters  and  image-worshippers. 

Have  we  not,  in  every  land  where  W6  have  had    the    power, 

prohibited  the  Romish  worship  9  Wny. have  we,  the  only 
friends  of  religions  liberty,  why  have  we  who  have  poured 
out  onr  treasure  and  onr blood  to  redeem  the  world  from  papal 

tyranny  ami  superstition,  why  have  W6  done  this,  but  for  the 


1)4  TIIE   TWO    BROTHERS. 

reason  that  we  have  not  dared  tolerate  superstition  and  idol- 
atry ? " 

"  Why  did  the  Jews,  God's  chosen  people,  through  whom 
the  Messiah  was  to  come,  and  who  were  hourly  expecting 
him  and  praying  for  his  coming,  crucify  him  between  two 
thieves  when  he  did  come,  but  on  the  pretext  that  he  had  a 
devil  and  was  a  blasphemer  ?  Did  the  fact  that  they  falsely 
accused  him,  and  then  crucified  him  on  that  false  accusation, 
supported  by  false  witnesses,  render  them  the  less  guilty  ?  " 

"Do  you  mean  to  say  that  so  many  great  and  good  men, 
so  many  pure  and  holy  men,  the  glory  of  their  age,  their 
country,  and  their  religion,  have  all  conspired  to  bear  false 
witness  against  the  Romish  Church  ?  The  thing  is  incred- 
ible." 

"  More  so  than  that  the  Jewish  nation  conspired  to  crucify 
their  God  ?  I  know  nothing  about  your  great  and  good  men, 
your  pure  and  holy  men  ;  but  I  know  that  whoever  accuses 
the  church  of  idolatry,  or  any  species  of  superstition,  utters 
as  foul  a  lie  as  did  the  wicked  Jews  who  told  our  Lord  he 
had  a  devil,  and  that  he  blasphemed.  No  doubt,  it  is  an  easy 
matter  to  prove  the  church  guilty,  if  all  you  have  to  do  is  to 
bring  a  false  accusation,  assume  your  own  sanctity,  and  then 
conclude  it  must  be  well  founded  or  you  coula  not  have 
made  it.  But  your  logic  would  be  more  respectable,  if  from 
the  falsity  of  your  accusation  you  concluded  your  want  of 
sanctity.  If  the  character  of  Protestants  is  a  presumption 
against  their  conspiracy  to  bring  a  false  accusation,  the  char- 
acter of  Catholics  is  a  still  stronger  presumption  against  their 
having  conspired  to  uphold  and  practise  idolatry  ;  for  the 
great  and  pure  and  holy  men  who  have  lived  and  died  in  the 
Catholic  faith,  granting  you  all  you  can  pretend  to,  are  as  a 
thousand  to  one  to  those  of  Protestant  communions.  But  you 
forget  that  I  was  brought  up  a  Protestant,  and  that  to  talk 
to  me  of  Protestant  sanctity  is  ridiculous.  I  am  acquainted 
with  Protestants,  and  with  what  they  facetiously  call  their 
religion.  Our  dear  mother,  too,  was  brought  up  a  Protestant, 
a  Presbyterian,  and  yet  what  did  she  tell  me  on  her  death- 
bed ? " 

"What  did  she?" 

"  No  matter  now ;  but  she  did  not  die  a  Presbyterian." 

"  Did  not  ?     What  mean  you  ? " 

"  Some  day,  I  may  tell  you,  but  you  are  not  now  worthy 
to  hear." 

"  Did  my  father  know  ?  " 


THE   TWO   BROTHEES.  95- 

"  As  much  as  you,  and  no  more." 

"  Did  anybody  know,  but  yourself  ?  " 

"  Yes." 

"  Do  you  mean  to  insinuate  that  a  Popish  priest  was  smug- 
gled into  our  house  ? " 

"  O  my  wise  brother,  you  do  not  know  all  things.  Angels 
of  mercy,  messengers  of  grace,  are  sometimes  sent  even  where 
the  ministers  of  Satan  fancy  they  do  and  can  find  no  admis- 
sion. All  things  are  possible  with  God,  and  nothing  is  too 
good  for  him  to  do  for  those  who  are  obedient  to  his  grace." 

"  Am  I  to  understand  that  my  mother  on  her  death-bed 
renounced  Presbyterianism,  and  became  a  Papist  ?  " 

"  She  did  not  die  a  Presbyterian.  You  may  recollect,  that 
during  the  last  week  of  her  life  she  refused  to  see  Mr.  Grim- 
face,  her  old  Presbyterian  pastor." 

"  True,  and  my  father  and  I  thought  it  strange  ;  but  as  we 
had  no  doubt  of  her  being  one  of  the  elect,  it  gave  us  no- 
great  uneasiness.  But  there  was  no  Romish  priest  within 
two  hundred  miles  of  us." 

"  I  have  no  doubt  that  my  mother  died  in  a  state  of  grace  ; 
but  more  I  will  not  tell  you,  till  you  prove  or  withdraw  your 
charge  against  the  church." 

"  But  why  did  not  our  mother  tell  us  all,  as  well  as  you,  of 
her  apostasy  ? " 

"  She  knew  both  your  father  and  you,  and  that,  if  she  had 
told  you,  she  would  have  been  denied  the  last  consolations 
of  religion  ;  and  after  she  had  received  them,  there  was  no 
opportunity,  till  she  became  unable  to  do  so.  But  your 
charge, — prove  or  withdraw  it." 

"  I  will  prove  it,  but  you  must  excuse  me  now.  Our  con- 
versation has  been  Long,  and  I  am  fatigued.  But  to-morrow, 
God  willing,  I  will  prove  that  the  Ilomish  Church  is  an  idola- 
trous ehureh." 

"  lie  it  so.  But  remember  and  prove  it,  or  I  shall  require 
you  to  own  that  Protestantism " 

"  Is  of  tin-,  devil.     1  accept  the  alternative.     If  I  fail  to 

ilili  li  the  charge  of  idolatry  and  superstition  against  the 

Romish ( Ihurch,  I  will  consent  that  the  reformers  be  branded 

as  calumniators,  and  that  Protei  tanl  3  are  and  have  been  from 
the  fir-t  acting  Under  the  delusion  of  Satan." 

u  Bee  thai  \  on  keep  your  word.'1 

The  brother    separated  for  the  remainder  of  the  day,  and 

James,  though  pleading  fatigue,  betook  himself  to  his  library 

to  look  up  hi.   proofs  and  prepare  for  the  morrow,     lie  felt 


M 


1TIE    TWO    BROTHERS. 


that  all  depended  on  the  issue  he  had  joined,  and  that,  if  he 
failed  to  justify  his  charge,  he  could  no  longer  pretend  to  up- 
hold the  reformers.  Hitherto  his  brother  had  kept  him  dis- 
cussing the  law  of  the  case ;  but  now  he  thought  he  saw  a 
chance  of  entering  upon  its  merits,  and  of  introducing  his 
witnesses.  How  he  succeeded  will  be  related  in  the  next 
chapter. 

CHAPTER  X. 

"  You  will  bear  in  mind,  James,"  remarked  John,  on  re- 
suming the  conversation  the  next  day,  "  that  you  have  pledg- 
ed yourself  to  prove  that  the  Catholic  Church  authorizes 
superstition  and  idolatry." 

"  And  if  I  do  not  prove  it,"  replied  James,  "  I  will  aban- 
don the  reformers  and  the  reformation." 

"  Since  you  prefer  the  charge,  it  devolves  on  you  to  prove 
it." 

"  That  is  not  difficult.     The  fact  is  notorious." 

"Assertions  are  easily  made  by  the  unscrupulous,  my 
brother ;  but  I  ask  for  proofs." 

"  Proofs,  proofs !  I  have  them  in  abundance.  "What  else 
are  your  prayers  for  the  dead, — your  invocation  of  saints, — 
your  worship  of  Mary, — adoration  of  crucifixes,  pictures, 
images,  relics  of  dead  men  and  women  ?  What  is  all  this, 
but  the  most  abominable  idolatry  and  superstition  ?  What 
else  is  your  adoration  of  the  mass,  and  all  the  vain  and  emp- 
ty ceremonies  of  your  church  ?  O,  it  is  frightful  to  think  to 
what  horrible  lengths  idolatry  and  superstition  are  carried 
among  you !  What  more  besotted,  than  for  a  full-grown 
man  to  believe  that  the  priest  can  make  his  God  at  will,  to  fall 
down  and  adore  a  bit  of  bread,  or  to  imagine  that  he  is  wor- 
shipping God  by  kissing  the  crucifix  and  telling  his  beads  ? 
I  hope,  John,  you,  at  least,  avoid  the  superstitious  practice 
of  telling  your  beads." 

"  I  say  my  beads  daily  for  your  conversion." 

"  That  is  enough ;  my  charge  is  proved.  When  a  man 
like  you  can  do  that,  there  is  no  need  of  other  evidence  to 
prove  that  your  church  favors  superstition." 

"  It  requires  strong  faith,  no  doubt,  to  be  able  to  regard 
your  conversion  as  possible ;  but  all  things  are  possible  with 
God,  and  he  has  never  been  known  to  deny  his  holy  Mother 
any  request,  for  she  can  request  nothing  not  in  accordance 

Vol.  VI— 22 


THE    TWO    BIIOTIIEES.  97 

•with  his  will.  If  she  intercedes  for  you,  your  conversion  is 
certain." 

"  Worse  and  worse.  Tou  confess  all  I  need  to  prove  my 
charge." 

"  Did  you  ever  read  the  record  of  the  trial  of  our  Lord  ? " 

"Why  do  you  ask  that?" 

"  Because  you  remind  me  of  his  accusers,  who  pretended 
to  convict  him  of  blasphemy  out  of  his  own  mouth.  Yet  it  is 
nothing  strange  or  uncommon  for  children  to  resemble  their 
parents.     You  say  the  church  is  superstitious  ? " 

"  The  Bomish  Church,  yes ;  and  I  prove  it." 

"What  is  superstition?" 

"  A  spurious  religion  or  false  worship ;  a  false  system  of 
religion,  credulity,  vain  observance." 

"You  would  hardly  be  able  to  convict  the  church,  or  to 
attempt  to  convict  her,  of  superstition,  under  that  definition, 
without  assuming  that  you  have  authority  to  determine,  or  by 
which  you  can  determine,  what  is  true  religion ;  which  we 
have  seen  is  not  the  fact.  Allow  me  to  suggest  a  definition 
a  little  more  to  your  purpose.  Superstition  is  a  vice  opposed 
to  true  religion,  as  the  schoolmen  say,  by  way  of  excess,  as 
irreligion  is  opposed  to  it  by  way  of  defect,  and  consists  in 
rendering  worship  to  an  object  to  which  it  is  not  due,  or  an 
undue  worship  to  the  object  to  which  it  is  due.  It  is, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  worship  of  false  gods,  and,  on  the  oth- 
er, the  false  worship  of  the  true  God,  and  includes  all  you 
mean  by  both  superstition  and  idolatry." 

"Very  well ;  I  say  the  Romish  Church  is  guilty  of  super- 
stition in  the  -in-''  in  which  you  have  defined  the  term. 

"  Superstition,  in  this  sense,  divides  itself  into  the  worship 
of  false  gods,  and  the  false  worship  of  the  true  God.  It  will 
In-  well  to  consider  each  division  separately.  Let  us  begin 
with  the  first,  that  is,  idolatry,  or  giving  the  worship  due  to 
to  that  which  is  QOl  God;  or,  in  other  words,  wor- 
shipping as  God  what  is  not  God." 

i>  Phe  Romish  Church  worships  as  God  what  is  not  God." 

"The  proof?" 

'•  she  paya  divine  worship  to  the  Virgin  Mary." 

"The  proof!" 

"She  authorizes  prayers  to  her." 

"  Nonsen  •• '.  prayer  la  nothing  but  a  request  or  a  petition, 
and  may  withoul  sin  or  impropriety  be  addressed  by  one  man 
to  another.  X"ou  might  as  well  say,  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  authorizes  idolatry,  because  it  recognizes  the 


98  THE    TWO    BROTHERS. 

right  of  petition,  and  forbids  congress  to  make  any  law  pro- 
hibiting the  people  from  peaceably  assembling  and  petition- 
ing for  a  redress  of  grievances.  As  well  say,  every  subject 
wno  petitions  the  king,  or  citizen  who  petitions  the  court  or 
the  legislature,  is  an  idolater.     Try  again,  brother." 

"  Your  church  honors  her,  a  mere  woman,  as  the  mother 
of  God." 

"  Well,  if  she  is  the  mother  of  God,  where  is  the  harm  in 
that,  since  it  is  only  honoring  her  for  what  she  is  ? " 

"  But  she  is  not  the  mother  of  God." 

"  That  is  for  you  to  prove.  You  must  remember,  how- 
ever, that  you  are  to  convict  the  church  of  idolatry  by  the 
light  of  nature,  and  you  can  in  your  argument  deny  nothing 
the  church  teaches,  unless  it  is  forbidden  by  the  natural  law. 
Assuming  the  Blessed  "Virgin  to  be  the  mother  of  God, — 
as  she  must  be,  if  Christ  is  God, — does  the  law  of  nature  for- 
bid her  from  being  honored  as  such  ?   This  is  the  question." 

"  The  law  of  nature,  which,  as  you  have  agreed,  forbids 
idolatry,  forbids  her  being  honored  as  God." 

"  Unquestionably ;  but  does  it  forbid  her  being  honored 
for  what  she  is  ? " 

"  But  Catholics  worship  her  as  divine,  and  pay  her  the 
worship  which  is  due  to  God  alone." 

"The  proof?" 

"  They  call  her  our  Advocate,  our  Mediatrix,  and  thus  rob 
Christ  of  the  glory  which  is  his  due ;  for  he  is  the  only  Me- 
diator between  God  and  men." 

"  The  only  mediator  and  advocate,  in  his  own  right ;  but, 
for  aught  the  law  of  nature  says,  his  mother  may  be  an  advo- 
cate and  a  mediatrix  under  him,  by  his  will  and  appointment ; 
for  she  would  then  advocate  or  mediate  only  by  his  author- 
ity, and  he  would  still  be  our  only  advocate  and  mediator, — 
since  that  which  I  do  mediately  by  another,  as  my  minis- 
ter or  delegate,  I  do  myself  as  much  as  if  I  did  it  immedi- 
ately. These  terms,  applied  to  the  Blessed  Virgin,  no  doubt 
imply  that  she  is  exalted  above  every  other  creature ;  but  as 
her  exaltation  is  that  of  a  creature,  and  an  exaltation  not  by 
her  own  natural  right,  but  by  grace,  it  by  no  means  places 
her  in  the  same  rank  with  her  Son,  who  is  exalted  above 
every  creature,  by  his  own  right,  the  right  of  his  own  proper 
divinity  which  assumed  humanity." 

"  But  Catholics  pray  to  her  much  more  than  they  do  to 
God." 

"  That  may  be  questioned  ;  but  if  so,  it  is  nothing  to  your 


THE   TWO    BROTHERS.  99 

purpose.  Ton  must  prove  that  they  praj  to  her  as  God,  ask 
of  her  what  may  be  rightfully  asked  only  of  God,  and  that 
they  pay  her  honors  which  are  due  to  him  alone." 

"  They  pray  to  her  to  have  mercy  on  them,  and  mercy  is 
the  prerogative  of  God  alone." 

"  Mercy,  in  the  sense  of  pardon  or  forgiveness  of  sin,  is 
the  property  of  God  only  ;  aud  in  this  sense,  Catholics  never 
ask  the  Blessed  Virgin  to  have  mercy  on  them.  But  mercy, 
in  the  sense  of  pity  or  compassion,  belongs  to  human  beings. 
Thus  we  say,  '  The  merciful  man  is  merciful  to  his  beast.' 
To  ask  the  Blessed  Virgin  to  have  compassion  on  us,  and  to 
intercede  with  her  divine  Son  for  us,  to  obtain  his  pardon  for 
us  by  her  powerful  intercession,  is  nothing  more  than  we 
may  lawfully  ask  of  our  pastors, — nothing  more  than  what 
the  Scriptures  say  the  Lord  commanded  the  three  friends  of 
Job  to  do." 

"  The  worship  which  Catholics  pay  to  the  saints  in  gener- 
al is  idolatry." 

"  The  highest  form  of  worship  we  pay  to  any  saint  is  that 
which  we  pay  to  the  holy  Mother  of  God.  If  that  is  not 
idolatrous,  then,  a  fortiori^  not  that  which  we  pay  to  the 
other  saints." 

"  But  you  honor  the  saints." 

"  And  what  do  you  conclude  from  that  ?  Does  not  the 
law  of  nature  command  us  to  give  honor  to  whom  honor  is 
due?  What  authority  have  you  for  supposing  that  we  pay 
undue  honor  to  the  saints?" 

"To  honor  them  as  God,  in  the  place  of  God,  is  to  give 
them  an  honor  which  is  not  their  due,  and  is  idolatry." 

"  Granted  ;  but  who  so  honors  them?" 

"Catholic   " 

"The  proof?" 

"  Catholics  may  not  honor  them  as  the  Supreme  God  ;  but 
tin  y  honor  them  as  a  species  of  inferior  gods,  as  the  Dii 
Mtnoret  of  the  heathen. 

"The  proof  1" 

"  The  Eact  is  evident  of  itself." 

"  Not  by  any  means.  The  honors  the  heathen  paid  to 
their  inferior  gode  were  different  in  Kind  from  those  which 
we  pay  to  the  aints,  and,  moreover,  were  paid  as  due  them 

In    their  own    natural    right,  and    i  due   only   to  what 

they  became  through  grace.   The  heathen  offered  sacrifices, 

and    therefore    paid    (twine  honors,  tO    their    interior  gods. 

Catholics  offer  no  sacrifices  and  pay  no  divine  honors  to  the 


100  TIIE   TWO    BROTHERS- 

saints ;  they  venerate  them  for  what,  through  grace,  they 
became,  and  they  ask  their  prayers  and  intercession,  which 
is  no  more  than  we  may  ask  of  the  living,  and  is  no  more 
than  your  parishioners  not  unfrequently  ask  of  yon, — no 
more  than  you  sanction  whenever  you  pray  God  for  your 
congregation,  or  for  an  individual  who  has  requested  to  be 
remembered  in  your  prayers." 

"  But  you  have  no  warrant  in  Scripture  for  praying  to 
the  saints." 

"  That  were  nothing  to  the  purpose,  if  true.  You  bring 
your  action  on  the  law  of  nature ;  and  when  you  find  that 
under  the  law  of  nature  you  have  no  cause  of  action,  you 
are  not  at  liberty  to  plead  some  other  law.  If  praying  to 
the  saints  is  not  idolatry  by  the  law  of  nature,  you  cannot 
allege  it  under  the  head  of  idolatry,  against  the  church." 

"But,  unless  the  church  has  a  warrant  in  the  word  of 
God  for  praying  to  the  saints,  she  has  no  right  to  pray  to 
them." 

"  And  unless  it  is  forbidden  by  some  precept  of  the  law 
of  nature,  you  cannot  deny  her  right." 

"  The  Romish  Church  worships  crosses,  dead  men's  bones, 
locks  of  their  hair,  their  finger-nails,  and  shreds  of  their 
garments." 

"What  then?" 

"  Then  she  is  idolatrous ;  for  we  must  worship  God,  and 
him  only." 

"  Worship  is  a  word  of  more  than  one  meaning ;  it  may 
mean  paying  divine  honors,  and  also  simply  paying  a  civil 
respect,  honoring  or  acknowledging  worth  wherever  we 
find  it.  In  the  former  sense,  it  is  due  to  God  alone,  and  is 
by  Catholics  paid  to  him  alone,  and  never  to  the  objects 
you  enumerate.  In  the  latter  sense,  it  may  be  paid,  and  the 
law  of  nature  requires  that  it  should  be  paid,  to  kings, 
judges,  magistrates,  to  our  parents,  and  to  whosoever  by 
rank  or  worth  is  entitled  to  honor.  In  this  sense,  the  law 
of  nature  not  only  does  not  forbid,  but  commands  us  to 
honor  or  to  treat  with  respect  such  objects  as  are  related  to 
eminent  worth.  To  honor  crosses  and  relics  of  the  saints, 
for  the  worth  to  which  they  are  related,  is,  then,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law  of  nature,  and  it  is  only  in  this  sense  that 
we  honor,  respect,  or,  if  you  please,  worship  them." 

"  But  you  do  not  honor  them  merely  as  memorials  of  a 
worth  which  was  real ;  you  pay  them  divine  honors." 
"False!" 


THE  TWO   BROTHERS.  101 

"Not  false.     Witness  the  Holy  Coat  of  Treves." 

"What  of  that?" 

"  Multitudes,  in  the  recent  pilgrimage  to  it,  prayed  to  it, 
saying,  '  O  Holy  Coat,  have  mercy  on  us  I '" 

"  The  evidence  of  what  you  assert  ? " 

"  It  is  said  so." 

"  By  whom,  and  on  what  authority  ?  n 

"Do  you  deny  it?" 

"  Deny  it  ?  Do  you  suppose  Catholics  are  so  besotted  as 
to  pray  to  what  has  no  life,  no  sense,  no  power  to  help  them, 
and  that,  too,  when  their  church,  as  I  showed  you  yester- 
day, positively  prohibits  praying  to  relics?  The  thing  is 
impossible ;  no  Catholic  ever  did,  or  ever  could,  utter  such 
a  prayer.  You  must  not  judge  our  people  by  your  own. 
We  preserve,  and  we  honor,  the  relics  of  departed  saints ; 
they  remind  us  of  the  worth  of  the  saints ;  and  when  they 
do  so,  we  pray  to  the  saints  to  pray  God  for  us,  and  procure 
for  us  the  graces  and  favors  we  need.  What  precept  of  the 
law  of  nature  does  this  violate?" 

"  Why  not  pray  directly  to  God  ? " 

u  That  question  is  out  of  place.  Why  do  you  ask  a  fel- 
low-mortal to  pray  for  you  ?  Why  do  you  pray  and  inter- 
cede for  your  congregation  ? " 

"  But  you  are  idolaters,  for  you  worship  images." 

"  If  by  worship  you  mean  paying  divine  honors,  your  as- 
sertion is  false." 

"  Your  houses  and  churches  are  full  of  images  and  pic- 
tures, and  you  kneel  and  pray  to  them." 

"  Kneel  and  pray  before  them,  I  grant ;  kneel  and  pray 
to  them,  I  deny.  There  is  a  difference  between  praying 
"before  an  image  and  praying  to  it,  which  I  should  suppose 
even  ;i  i  'rotestant  might  understand." 

"  But  you  break  the  second  commandment ;  and  that  your 
dclum-d  followers  may  not  detect  the  fact,  you  have  ex- 
punged it  from  the  Decalogue." 

u  We  do  not  expunge  what  you  call  the  second  command- 
ment; we  only  reckon  it  as  a  part  of  the  first  command- 
ment." 

M  Nevertheless  you  break  it,  for  it  says,  'Thou  shalt  not 
make  unto  thee  any  graven  image,  or  any  likeness  of  any 
thing  that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the  earth  beneath, 
or  that  i;5  in  the  water  under  the  earth.'" 

"<  (raven  thingt  not  graven  image,  is  the  correct  transla- 
tion, ami  more  to  your  purpose;    otherwise  the  precept 


102  THE   TWO    BROTHERS. 

would  not  forbid  making  statues  of  Jupiter,  Neptune,  and 
other  purely  fictitious  beings.  But  do  you  understand  that 
precept  to  forbid  absolutely  the  making  and  keeping  of 
images,  statues,  or  pictures  ? " 

"  Of  course  I  do ;  I  am  not  wise  above  what  is  written." 

"  Nobody  asks  you  to  be  wise  above  what  is  written ;  the 
question  is,  What  is  written  ?  Then  I  am  to  understand 
you  to  maintain  that  Moses  broke  that  commandment  when 
he  made  and  set  up  the  brazen  serpent  in  the  wilderness ; 
that  Solomon  broke  it  when  he  placed  the  brazen  sea  in  the 
temple  on  twelve  brazen  oxen;  that  it  was  broken  by  the 
images  of  the  Cherubim,  who  spread  out  their  wings  over 
the  mercy-seat  where  God  promised  to  meet  his  people ; 
that  our  stern  Puritans  of  Massachusetts  break  it  by  sus- 
pending the  image  of  a  codfish  in  their  State  House  ;  that 
Congress  break  it  in  ordering  a  statue  of  Washington  ;  and 
that  it  is  broken  by  that  dog's  head  carved  on  your  cane, 
and  those  lion's  claws  on  the  feet  of  your  table  ? " 

"  No,  I  do  not  say  all  that." 

"  Well,  what  do  you  say  ?  " 

"  Why,  that  the  commandment  forbids  the  making  and 
keeping  of  images,  &c,  as  objects  of  religious  veneration." 

"  That  is,  '  Thou  shalt  not  adore  them,  nor  serve  them,' 
or,  as  the  catechism  says,  '  It  forbids  making  them,  so  as  to 
adore  and  serve  them  ;  that  is,  it  forbids  making  them  our 
gods.' " 

"  But  the  Romish  Church  commands,  you  cannot  deny, 
supreme  religious  worship  to  be  paid  to  what  you  call  tne 
sacred  Host. 

"What  then?" 

"  Then  she  is  idolatrous ;  for  she  commands  her  children 
to  pay  divine  honors  to  a  bit  of  bread." 

"  False  !  She  commands  no  such  thing.  She  commands 
us  to  worship  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  God  and  man,  entitled 
in  his  own  right  to  supreme  worship,  and  who  veils  his  di- 
vinity and  his  humanity  both  under  the  sacramental  species. 
It  is  not  the  bread,  for  she  teaches  there  is  no  bread  there, 
but  the  Son  who  is  consubstantial  to  the  Father,  and  whom 
we  are  to  honor  as  we  honor  the  Father,  that  she  commands 
us  to  adore.     There  is,  then,  no  idolatry  in  the  adoration." 

"But  her  teaching  is  false, — the  Host  is  nothing  but 
bread." 

"  That  is  a  matter  which  you,  by  the  light  of  nature,  can- 
not decide." 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  103 

"  But  she  must  prove  to  me  that  it  is  not  bread,  before  I 
can  be  bound  to  adore  it." 

"  Undoubtedly  ;  but  you  must  prove  that  it  is  bread,  be- 
fore you  can  pronounce  the  adoration  idolatrous." 

"  But  I  have  the  evidence  of  my  senses  that  it  is  bread." 
"  You  have  the  evidence  of  your  senses  that  the  species 
of  bread  are  there,  and  that  the  church  asserts ;  but  that, 
under  the  species  of  bread,  there  is  the  substance  of  bread, 
you  have  not  the  evidence  of  your  senses ;  for  the  senses 
never,  in  any  case  whatever,  take  cognizance  of  substances. 
You  have,  therefore,  the  evidence  of  your  senses  against 
nothing  the  church  asserts.  Consequently,  by  the  light  of 
nature  alone,  you  can  neither  affirm  nor  deny  what  she  as- 
serts ;  and  unless  you  can  deny  it,  you  cannot  say  that  the 
adoration  of  the  Host  is  idolatrous.  If  what  she  teaches  be 
true,  the  adoration  is  due,  and  commanded  by  the  natural 
law,  which  commands  us  to  give  to  every  one  his  due. 
Have  you  any  thing  more  to  adduce  in  support  of  the 
charge  of  idolatry  ? " 

"  Perhaps  it  is  true  that  Catholics  worship,  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word,  only  God ;  but,  though  they  may  wor- 
ship the  true  object,  they  render  him  a  false  worship." 
"  That  is,  they  worship  him  in  an  undue  manner." 
"Yes,  that  is  what  I  mean." 

"To  be  able  to  say  that,  you  must  first  determine  t\\edue 
manner  of  worshipping  him.  But  you  cannot  do  this  with- 
out authority,  and  you  have,  as  we  have  seen,  no  authority, 
except  the  light  of  nature.  Are  you  able  by  the  light  of 
nature  alone  to  determine  what  is  the  due  worship  of 
God?" 

"I  am  able,  in  -nine  cases,  at  least,  by  the  light  of  nature, 
to  say  what  is  not  due  worship." 

"  Be  il  BO;  what  is  there,  then,  in  Catholic  worship  for- 
bidden by  the  law  of  nature?" 

•All  her  peculiar  worship, — her  saint-worship,  her  ven- 
eration of  relics,  her  beads  and  crucifixes,  her  fasts  and 
feasts,  her  empty  forms  and  idle  ceremonies." 

"Her  empty  forms  and  idle  ceremonies)  By  what  au- 
thority do  y"ii  pronounce,  her  forms  empty,  and  her  cere- 
monies  idle  i " 

"  Do  yon  deny  thai  her  whole  worship  consists  of  empty 
form  i  and  idle  oeremonie  1 " 

"Of  course  I  do.  Bui  I »•  so  good  as  to  specify  what  you 
call  an  empty  form,  Or  an  [die  ceremony." 


104 


TUB   TWO   BROTHERS. 


"  The  light  of  nature  teaches  us  that  God  is  not  wor- 
shipped by  mere  show,  by  vain  pomp  and  parade,  and  that 
no  worship  can  be  acceptable  to  him  which  is  not  real,  in 
spirit  and  in  truth." 

"  Granted ;  proceed.'1 

"  Your  bowings  and  genuflections,  your  fasts  and  your 
feasts,  are  a  vain  mockery,  if  merely  external,  and  the  heart 
be  far  from  God." 

"  No  doubt  of  it ;  proceed." 

"  Confessions  to  a  priest,  external  acts  of  penance,  the 
repetition  of  paters  and  aves,  and  even  the  giving  of  alms, 
are  vain  illusions,  and  have  no  power  to  purge  the  con- 
science, if  there  be  not  genuine  repentance,  deep  and  pun- 
gent sorrow  for  sin." 

"  Nothing  in  the  world  more  true  ;  proceed." 

"  The  heart  must  be  right ;  there  must  be  internal  holi- 
ness, or  all  our  outward  worship  will  avail  us  nothing." 

"  As  true  as  preaching.     Go  on." 

"  This  is  enough.  In  conceding  this  much,  you  condemn 
your  church." 

"  How  so  ?  " 

"  Because  all  she  enjoins  is  outward,  formal,  mechanical, 
addressed  to  the  senses  and  imagination,  requiring  no  inter- 
nal purity  and  holiness  in  the  worshipper." 

"  And  where  did  you  learn  that  ?  " 

"  Is  it  not  so  ? " 

"  What  proof  have  you  that  it  is  so  ? " 

"  It  is  what  the  reformers  and  we  have  always  alleged 
against  her." 

"  If  they  have  called  the  master  of  the  house  Beelzebub, 
how  much  more  them  of  his  household  !  I  have  not  asked 
what  you  allege,  but  the  proof  of  what  you  allege,  against 
the  church." 

"  Do  you  mean  to  call  all  Protestants  false  witnesses  and 
calumniators  ? " 

"  Is  it  more  unreasonable  to  believe  them  to  be  such,  than 
it  is  to  believe  that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  all  who 
bear  the  Christian  name,  or  have  borne  it,  have,  for  eigh- 
teen hundred  years,  or  from  the  very  age  of  the  apostles, 
been  sunk  in  superstition,  and  guilty  of  the  abominable  sin 
of  idolatry  ?  It  seems  to  me  much  easier  to  believe  that  a 
Protestant  can  calumniate  than  that  a  Catholic  can  be  an 
idolater;  and  in  so  believing,  I  believe  nothing  worse  of 
you  than  you  profess  to  believe  of  us." 


TIIE   TWO   BEOTHERS.  105 

"  What  else  can  one  see  in  your  worship  than  mere  out- 
ward form  ? " 

"  What  else  should  you  expect  to  see  in  external  worship 
but  external  worship  ?  External  is  by  its  very  nature  ex- 
ternal ;  and  I  am  unable  to  comprehend  how  the  church 
should  have  an  external  worship,  and  yet  not  an  external 
worship.  But  if  you  had  ever  taken  the  least  pains  to  in- 
form yourself,  you  would  have  known  that  the  church 
teaches  all  her  children  that  no  external  act,  which  does  not 
proceed  from  internal  justice  and  sanctity,  is,  or  can  be, 
meritorious." 

"  Tou  rely  on  the  sacraments." 

"  Well,  what  then  ? " 

"  Are  they  not  outward  ? " 

"  Are  they  not  inward  ? " 

"  Does  not  the  church  teach  that  the  child  is  regenerated 
in  baptism  ? " 

"  She  does." 

"  And  it  is  no  superstition  to  believe  that  a  little  water 
poured  upon  the  head  of  the  child,  and  a  few  words  mut- 
tered over  him  by  the  priest,  can  regenerate  the  soul  ? " 

"  If  you  make  the  water  and  the  words  the  efficient  cause 
of  the  regeneration,  it  is  unquestionably  superstition,  for 
none  but  the  Holy  Ghost  can  regenerate  the  child  ;  but  if 
you  understand  by  the  water  and  the  words  simply  the  me- 
dium through  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  pleased  to  communi- 
cate the  grace  which  regenerates,  there  is  no  superstition ; 
for  the  cause  assigned  is  adequate  to  the  effect.  The  church 
teaches  the  latter ;  the  former  is  the  vain  fancy  of  her  ca- 
lumniators." 

"If  it  is  the  Holy  Ghost  that  regenerates,  why  can  he  not 
regenerate  without  the  water  and  words  as  well  as  with 
them  ? " 

"That  is  a  question  which  dons  not  fall  within  the  iuris- 
dictfon  of  tin-  law  of  nature.  You  and  I  have  no  right  to 
call  Almighty  <iod  to  an  account,  and  to  ask  him,  Why  do 
yon  M  V 

"  But  how  dons  the  church  know  that  the  Holy  Ghost  re- 
generates in  baptism  I " 

"  That  is  a  question  which  pertains  to  positive  revelation, 
and  not  to  the  natural  law.  Tin;  revelation  is  her  authority 
fur  what  she  t  Bits,  concerning  which,  if  it  do  not  contra- 
dict natural  reason,  tin'  natural  law  enacts  nothing." 

"  There  are  other  sacraments." 


106  TnE   TWO    BllOTHERS. 

"  Certainly  ;  but  all  are  founded  on  the  same  principle,  and 
are  not  the  efficient  cause  of  grace,  but  the  media  through 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  communicates  the  graces  which  our 
Lord,  by  his  own  infinite  merits,  has  purchased  for  us." 

"  But  anybody  can  receive  the  sacrament,  whatever  his 
internal  disposition  ;  and  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  does 
not  depend  on  the  recipient." 

"  Anybody  can  receive  the  sacrament  externally  ;  but  no- 
body can  receive  any  spiritual  benefit  from  it,  unless  he  re- 
ceives it  with  proper  internal  dispositions.  He  who  should 
approach  the  sacrament  of  penance,  for  instance,  without  all 
you  understand  by  repentance,  would,  instead  of  receiving 
the  fruits  of  the  sacrament,  only  profane  it,  and  add  to  his 
guilt.  In  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  he  who  eats  or 
drinks  unworthily  eats  and  drinks  condemnation  to  himself. 
The  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  does  not,  indeed,  depend  on 
the  recipient ;  but  that  the  recipient  may  experience  its  effects, 
or  that  it  may  operate  its  effects  in  him,  he  must  take  care 
that  he  interpose  by  his  malice  no  obstacle  to  its  opera- 

"  But  what  is  the  use  of  your  saint- worship  ?  " 

"  That  is  not  precisely  the  question." 

"  The  worship,  if  useless,  is  idle  or  vain,  and  therefore 
superstitious.  You  must,  then,  prove  that  it  is  not  useless, 
or  you  do  not  clear  your  church  of  the  charge  of  supersti- 
tion." 

"  You  must  prove  from  the  light  of  nature  that  it  is  use- 
less, or  you  do  not  sustain  your  charge  against  her.  You 
bring  the  action,  and  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  you." 

"  I  accuse  the  church  of  superstition  ;  and  I  adduce  as 
proof  of  my  accusation  the  worship  of  the  saints,  which  she 
authorizes." 

"  But  you  cannot  adduce  your  accusation  in  proof  of  your 
accusation.  The  cultus  sanctorum  is  conceded  to  be  author- 
ized by  the  church,  and  the  very  point  in  dispute  is,  Whether 
that  is  or  is  not  superstitious.  It  is  only  on  the  assumption 
that  it  is,  that  you  can  conclude  from  it  that  the  church  is 
superstitious.  To  assume  that  it  is  superstitious  is  to  assume 
what  is  in  question,  which  you  are  not  permitted  to  do.  You 
must,  therefore,  since  the  point  is  denied,  prove  that  the 
cultus  sanctorum  is  useless." 

"  Reason  can  see  no  use  in  it." 

"  That,  if  conceded,  were  not  enough.  You  can  conclude 
nothing   against   the  church  from  the  inability  of  reason. 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  107 

Reason  must  be  able  to  affirm  its  inutility,  or  it  can  affirm 
nothing  to  your  purpose." 

"  But  I  must  have  affirmative  proof  that  it  is  useful,  before 
I  can  reasonably  assent  to  it." 

"  Nothing  more  true ;  but  the  authority  of  the  church  suf- 
fices for  that,  unless  you  can  divest  her  of  her  authority. 
You  are  attempting  to  convict  the  church  of  superstition,  in 
order  to  be  able  to  conclude  against  her  authority.  You  must, 
then,  prove  that  she  authorizes  superstition,  as  the  condition 
of  setting  aside  her  authority,  and,  therefore,  that  what  she 
authorizes  is  superstitious,  as  the  condition  of  proving  that 
she  authorizes  superstition.  It  is,  therefore,  not  for  me  to 
prove  that  the  cultus  sanctorum  is  useful,  but  for  you  to  prove 
that  it  is  useless,  and  therefore  superstitious." 

"  It  is  an  undue  worship." 

"  That  is  the  point  you  must  prove." 

"  Any  worship  which  God  forbids,  does  not  exact,  or  ap- 
prove, is  an  undue  worship,  and  therefore  superstition." 

"  Granted  ;  what  then  ? " 

1 '  What  is  your  authority  for  saying  that  God  does  exact 
or  approve  what  you  term  the  cultus  sanctorum  ?  " 

"  I  our  memory  is  apparently  very  short.  Let  me  ask  you 
by  what  authority  you  assert  that  God  forbids  it,  or  does  not 
exact  or  approve  it." 

"  I  find  no  authority  for  it  in  the  Scriptures." 

"  That  is  not  certain  ;  but  you  cannot  appeal  to  the  Script- 
ures, for  you  have  no  legal  possession  of  them  and  are  not 
authorized  to  interpret  them,  and  because  you  bring  your 
action,  not  on  the  revealed,  but  on  the  natural  law.  Besides, 
the  fact  that  you  find  no  authority  for  the  cultus  sanctorum 
is  not  sufficient  for  your  purpose  ;  you  must  have  authority 
agaimtA  it,  and  you  can  conclude  nothing  against  it,  unless 
you  find  it  prohibited  by  the  law  of  nature." 

"  I  know,  by  the  light  of  nature,  that  God  does  not  exact 
or  approve,  hut,  forbids,  all  idle  and  vain  worship." 

"Undoubtedly  ;  hut  what  m  idle  and  vain  worship?" 

"Tin-  Romish  worship  of  the  saints*'1 

"That  is  begging  the  question,  or  making  your  accusation 
the  proof  of  the  truth  of  your  accusation, — the  ordinary 
Protestant  method  of  proving  what  they  assert  against  the 
church.  Bui  proceeding  in  this  way,  we  Bhall  never  be  able 
to  come  to  any  conclu  don.  [s  notanyworship  superstition-; 
in  which  the  worshipper  looks  for  effects  from  inadequate 

'■an  -'■  -  '.  " 


108  THE   TWO   BKOTHER8. 

"  Perhaps  60." 

"  Thus  it  is  superstition  to  fear  bad  luck  because  we  have 
seen  the  new  moon  over  our  left  shoulder,  or  because  we 
have  begun  a  piece  of  work,  put  to  sea,  or  commenced  a 
journey  on  Friday ;  to  expect  to  discharge  what  we  owe  to 
God  by  paying  divine  honors  to  what  is  not  God,  to  please 
him  by  vain  observances,  or  to  obtain  blessings  by  means  of 
prayers  to  inanimate  or  senseless  objects, — objects  which 
can  neither  bestow  the  blessings  nor  intercede  with  God  for 
them ;  for  in  these,  and  all  similar  cases,  the  causes  are  in- 
adequate to  the  effects.  On  the  contrary,  in  all  cases  in 
which  the  effects  feared  or  expected  are  feared  and  expected 
from  adequate  causes,  although  there  may  be  error,  there  is  no 
superstition." 

"Be  it  so." 

"  Then  in  order  to  convict  the  cultus  sanctorum  of  super- 
stition, you  must  show  that  the  effects  we  expect  from  it  are 
expected  from  inadequate  causes." 

"  That  can  easily  be  done.  The  saints  cannot  atone  for 
our  sins,  and  be  our  mediators." 

"  Granted  ;  nor  do  we  expect  any  thing  of  the  sort  from 
them.     All  we  ask  of  them  is  their  prayers." 

"  Even  that  is  superstitious,  because  the  saints  have  na 
power  to  hear  your  prayers  or  to  pray  for  you." 

"  How  know  you  that  ? " 

"  They  are  no  longer  living." 

"  In  tne  flesh,  conceded  ;  but  the  church  assures  us  that 
they  still  live  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  if  they  do,  they 
can  hear  our  prayers  in  him,  and  do  for  us  all  we  ask  of  them  ; 
and  how  can  you,  from  the  light  of  nature,  say  they  do  not 
so  live  % " 

"  Your  veneration  of  relics  is  superstitious,  for  you  ac- 
knowledge that  they  have  no  life  or  sense  to  help  you." 

"  We  do  not  expect  them  to  help  us." 

"Then  the  veneration  is  idle,  and  therefore  supersti- 
tious." 

"  In  the  respect  we  pay  to  the  relics  of  a  saint,  it  is  the  saint 
we  honor ;  and  whatever  we  expect,  we  expect  from  the  in- 
tercession of  the  saint,  and  through  that  intercession  from 
God,  who  is  honored  in  his  saints,  and  who  himself  delights 
to  honor  them." 

"  But  the  superstition  is  in  supposing  that  honoring  the 
relics  is  honoring  the  saint." 

"  The  law  of  nature  teaches  the  reverse  ;  for  that  teaches 


THE  TWO   BROTHERS.  109 

us  that  honor  to  what  belonged  to  another,  because  it  be- 
longed to  him,  is  a  pious  and  affecting  mode  of  honoring  him. 
Hence  the  universality  of  funeral  ceremonies,  the  marks  of 
respect  which  all  men  show  to  the  relics  of  their  deceased 
friends,  especially  to  the  remains  of  those  held  to  be  deserv- 
ing of  honor  for  their  rank,  their  virtues,  their  services,  their 
heroic  deeds ;  and  surely  none  are  more  deserving  of  honor 
than  the  saints  of  God." 

"  Your  feasts,  fasts,  and  external  observances  are  all  super- 
stitious." 

"  How  do  you  prove  that  ? " 

"  They  are  all  external  and  mechanical ;  and  to  expect 
spiritual  effects  from  them  is  to  look  for  effects  from  inad- 
equate causes." 

"  The  law  of  nature  commands  us  to  worship  God  exter- 
nally as  well  as  internally,  and  an  external  worship  must  needs 
be  external.  The  fact,  that  what  you  object  to  is  external,  is, 
therefore,  no  ground  of  objection.  Feasts  or  festivals  are 
merely  days  set  apart  for  public  thanksgiving  to  God  for  his 
mercies  and  favors  to  us,  in  becoming  man  for  us,  in  suffering 
and  dying  for  us,  in  rising  again  for  us,  in  sending  us  the 
Holy  Ghost,  in  raising  up  and  giving  to  us  such  or  such  a 
saint,  &c.  If  kept  according  to  the  intent  of  the  church, 
internal  as  well  as  external  thanks  are  rendered  by  each  wor- 
shipper, and  therefore  the  observance  of  the  festival  is  not 
and  cannot  be  mechanical.  The  law  of  nature  commands  the 
giving  of  thanks  to  God  ;  and  perhaps  even  the  mere  ex- 
ternal observance  of  appointed  seasons  for public  thanksgiv- 
ing is  better  than  no  observance  at  all.  Fasts  are  for  the 
mortification  of  the  body;  they  are  admirably  adapted  to  that 
end  ;  and  the  light  of  nature  teaches  08  thai  the  mortification 
of  the  body  is  wholesome  for  the  soul.  Moreover,  to  fast, 
as  required,  is  also  to  fast  with  proper  interior  dispositions. 

You  cannot,  then,  say,  either  that  in   them   then;   is  only  a 

mechanical  action,  or  that  wo  look  for  effects  from  inadequate 
causes." 

"  lint  the  wile  ceremonies  and  vain  observances  of  your 
public  wor  hip  ire    nperstitious.'1 

"  If  i<lle  and  v.i  in,  snper  tit  ions  of  course  ;  bul  how  do  you 

know   that   they   are    idle  and    vain  |     Our   public   worship 

consists  of  the  holy  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  prayers, and  sing- 
ing the  praisea  Of  God.  These  yon  have  no  right  to  pro- 
nounce idle  or  vain.  Our  sacrifice  We  hold  to  he  a  real  sac- 
rifice, in  an  nnbloody  manner,  of  a  real  victim  ;  and  prayers 


110  THE  TWO   BROTHERS. 

and  the  singing  of  praises  have,  by  the  common  consent  of 
mankind,— the  authority  for  determining  what  is  the  law  of 
nature, — always  been  held  to  be  appropriate  parts  of  public 
worship.  Much  of  what  you  call  idle  ceremony  and  vain 
observance  is  integral  in  the  worship  itself ;  and  what  is  not 
absolutely  essential  is  adopted  for  the  sake  of  decency,  solem- 
nity, and  the  edification  of  the  faithful." 

"  I  am  not  edified  by  it." 

"  Because  you  are  not  one  of  the  faithful,  and  do  not  wor- 
ship. Satan,  no  doubt,  could  himself  bring  the  objection 
to  our  worship  which  you  do.  Our  worship  is  adapted  to 
the  edification  of  those  who  worship,  not  of  those  who  do 
not." 

"  But  your  worship  is  calculated  to  lead  the  weak  and  igno- 
rant into  idolatry  and  superstition." 

"  It  will  be  time  to  consider  that  objection  when  you  have 
shown  that  a  Catholic,  by  practising  what  the  churcn  enjoins 
or  permits,  is  rendered  superstitious." 

"  Your  worship  is  exceedingly  offensive." 

"  To  whom  ?  To  Protestants  ?  Then  let  them  become 
Catholics, — especially  since  they  have  no  warrant  from  Al- 
mighty God  to  be  any  thing  else." 

"  Your  church  is  exceedingly  impolitic.  The  practices  to 
which  we  object  may  have  been  very  well  in  dark  and  super- 
stitious ages ;  but  men  in  this  enlightened  and  scientific  age 
demand  a  more  pure  and  spiritual  worship." 

"  The  policy  you  would  recommend  to  the  church,  then, 
is,  to  be  superstitious  with  the  superstitious,  and  irreligious 
with  the  irreligious  ?  If  her  practices  could  have  a  super- 
stitious tendency,  it  is  precisely  in  a  dark  and  superstitious 
age  in  which  they  would  be  dangerous,  and  when  it  would 
be  least  proper  to  insist  on  them.  If  this  age  be  what  you 
suppose,  it  is  precisely  now  that  they  are  most  appropriate, 
as  being  in  opposition  to  dominant  tendencies.  But  the 
church  is  not  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  taking  the  advice 
of  those  who  despise  her,  and  very  possibly  the  age  is  not  so 
enlightened  as  it  appears  to  those  whose  eyes  are  accustomed 
only  to  the  twilight.     Have  you  any  thing  more  to  add  ? " 

"  There  is  no  use  in  continuing  the  discussion.  Let  me 
say  what  I  will,  you  will  dispose  of  it  by  declaring  it  irrele- 
vant, or  by  a  sophistical  distinction." 

"  Do  you  keep  your  word,  and  give  up  the  reformers  and 
the  reformation  ? " 

"  You  have  not  made  me  a  Romanist." 


THE   TWO   BROTHERS.  HI 

"  I  have  not  attempted  to  do  that ;  I  have  simply  demanded 
of  you  a  reason  why  you  are  a  Protestant." 

"  I  have  given  you  reasons  which  satisfy  me,  and  that  is 
enough.  Each  of  us  must  answer  for  himself,  and  not  for 
another." 

"  You  pledged  yourself,  if  you  failed  to  convict  the  church 
of  idolatry  and  superstition,  to  give  up  the  Protestant  cause. 
Do  you  regard  yourself  as  having  made  out  your  case  ?  " 

"  There  is  no  use  in  multiplying  words.  My  mind  is 
made  up." 

"  You  have  no  right  to  make  up  your  mind  without  rea- 
son." 

•  My  choice  is  made.  I  was  born  a  Protestant;  I  have 
lived  a  Protestant ;  and  I  will  die  a  Protestant." 

"If  you  choose  death,  you,  no  doubt,  can  have  it.  Al- 
mighty God  forces  no  man  to  enter  into  life." 

"I  take  the  responsibility;  and  nothing  shall  move  me." 

Here  the  conversation  ended,  and  the  two  brothers  sep- 
arated.    John  entered  a  religious  house,  where  he  resides, 
devoting  himself  wholly  to  religion  ;  James  remains  the  min- 
r  of  his  congregation.     He  has  recently  married  again, 

;  he  appears  to  have  forgotten  his  domestic  afflictions. 
II.-  continues  at  the  head  of  the  "Protestant  League,"  is 
loud«-r  than  ever  in  praise  of  the  reformers  and  the  glorious 
reform  ind  more  violent  than  ever  in  his  denunciations 

of  Catholics  and  Catholicity.  Humanly  speaking,  there  is 
DO  hope  of  his  conversion.  It  is  to  he  feared  that  -lames 
Milwood  is  the  type  of  a  large  class  of  Protestant  ministers. 
I  would  judge  no  individual,  hut  it  seems  to  me  that  the  no- 
tion many  people  have  thai  Protestants  are  generally  in  good 
faith. and  ready  to  embrace  the  truth,  if  presented  to  them, 
-  on  no  adequate  authority.  So  far  as  I  have  known 
Prot    ;  in1  .  they  are  ready  to  said  ;i  Protestant  min- 

r  to  me  the  other  day,  "I  would  rather  be  damned  than 
be  a  Catholic." 


9» 


THE 


/~\ 

n 

R] 

i(S 

p 

)? 

v_ 

LU 

LlU 

u 

<-J 

,  A.  Brownson. 


20  VOLUMES,  8vo. 


Cloth,  per  volume,  $3.00 

Half=morocco,  per  vol.,     -       5.00 

SENT  FREE  OF  POSTAGE.  ON  RECEIPT  OF  PRICE. 


Volumei  I  and  il  contain  the  philosophical  or  metaphysical  writ- 
ings from   1888  to  1876. 

Volume  :t  treats  of  the  Natural  and  Supernatural,  Science  and  Faith, 
on  and  Revelation. 

Volume   I  contains  the  author's  principal  writings  during  his  prog- 
from  Infidelity  to  the  Catholic  Church. 

Volume  .*»  contains  'l'i<<  Convert,  and  essays  on  the  necessity  of  the 
Church  for  faith  and  for  salvation. 

Volume  G  treats  of  Transcendentalism  and  Presbyterianism. 

Volume  7  contains  articles  against  Unitarians  and  Episcopalians, 

Volume  s  contaii  the  Mysteries,  on  the  Worship  of  the 

Baints  and  relics,  on  religious  orders,  the  commission,  constitution, 
attributes,  and  authority  of  the  Church,  and  on  Ui  i 

Volume  9  conts  '  Rapper,  and  the  d  on  of  spirit 

i-m  and  of  the  Hi'  recent  sclent!  I 

Volume  lo  contain    I  ••*  of  mi  Old  Van  and  Hit   Toting 

d  articl  i  ducation,  and  on  the  relations  of  the 

<     mil  and  of  Protestantism  with  civil 

Volume  1 1  contains  Tack  and  EKi  Nephew,  Conversation 

ni  .,ii  On-  temporal  and  spiritual  orders. 


Volume  12  contains  articles  on  Church  and  State,  the  Church  and 
the  Republic,  and  on  Education,  and  the  philosophical  essays  on 
the  Reformation. 

Volume  I'-J  treats  of  Church  and  State,  Education  and  the  State, 
and   Papal   Infallibility. 

Volume  14  contains  articles  on  Development,  and  on  Morals. 

Volume  15  contains  writings,  from  1838  to  1847,  on  Government 
and  American  Politics. 

Volume  16  contains  writings,  from  1846  to  1800,  on  American  and 
Foreign  Politics  and  Parties. 

Volume  17  is  on  Slavery  and  the  American  Civil  War. 

Volume  18  contains  The  American  Republic,  articles  on  Know- 
Nothingism,  Woman's  Rights,  and  the  Roman  Question. 

Volume  19  is   on  Modern    Literature,    and   on  Novel-reading   and 

Religious  Novels. 

Volume  20  contains  a  number  of  articles  to  which  objections  were 
made  and  the  author's  defence  and  explanation.  This  volume  also 
gives  an  alphabetical  index  of  all  the  writings  in  the  twenty  vol- 
umes by  their  titles,  and  another  of  the  matters  treated  of. 


ALSO,  SOLD    SEPARATELY  : 

THE  SPIRIT  RAPPER,  .    n 

.    .  ' Cloth,  Sl.OO 

THE  TWO  BROTHERS, 

.     .  ' Cloth,         .60 

UNCLE  JACK  AND  HIS  NEPHEW, 

Cloth,         .60 

AN  ESSAY  IN  REPUTATION  OP  ATHEISM, 

Cloth,         .60 

HENRY  F.  BKOWNSON, 

Detroit,  Mich. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Disc" 

FER  99 


URL 


"• 


..<•    •     >■  ■v 


QL    JAN  %  i  199 


50m-7,'69(N296s4)— C-120 


<? 


■> 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  634  148 


m 


